Message from discussion Physics from logic?(Check my math)
Received: by 10.204.13.69 with SMTP id b5mr192793bka.4.1333826626872;
Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8
Subject: Re: Physics from logic?(Check my math)
References: <email@example.com> <uoPfr.26515$V94.firstname.lastname@example.org> <wrZfr.47045$QC3.email@example.com> <b%Zfr.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Trace: newsfe19.iad 1333826626 126.96.36.199 (Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:23:46 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:23:46 UTC
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:23:32 -0600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 07/04/2012 1:12 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 12:05 PM, Mike wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 12:32 pm, Nam Nguyen<namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> Let's formally expand this concept of an "autonomous axiomatic formal"
>>>> system, in the context of FOL formalism.
>>>> The formal system is designated as U and its language is that of ZF:
>>>> L(U) = L(ZF). The meta description of U is:
>>>> (a) All theorems of ZF are theorems of U.
>>>> (b) There exists an infinite sequence of formulas, any finite
>>>> sub-sequence of which is a FOL proof.
>>> OK. U can't be distinct from ZF just on the basis of (a) and (b) only.
>>> So here's an addendum:
>>> (c) Any formula in the sequence has a non-trivial proof in the sequence.
>>>> Can U really exist - as a consistent theory?
>> Dear Nam,
>> I'm a little confused here. Is this issue you raise have something to
>> do with my effort as described on my website?
> Hi Mike,
> I did read your original post and iirc it already contains in depth
> physics materials which discouraged me from visiting the web page,
> because (as mentioned before) I'm not a physicist and my knowledge
> of technical (theorectical) physics is extremely limited, virtually nil.
> On the other hand, the title of the thread has the 3 words "Physics",
> "Logic", and "Math" and the fora list includes the 3 corresponding ng's,
> so I think it's not inappropriate for me to chip in some thoughts.
> After all, it was said that Neptune orbit was a direct result of
> mathematical calculations using Newton mathematical "axiomatic
> formal system". And, that failing, gravitation is said to be mere
> (space-time) _geometrical_ curvature.
>> Is the U that you are
>> referring to the same conjunction of all facts that I label as U?
> It is just a coincidence: it stands for "Universe", naturally, and
> it has its mathematical logic root in the definition of FOL language
> model, as you might already be aware.
>> is this a side issue that you are having with another participant?
> If we consider mathematics as the language of science and I think
> all of logic, math, and physics, we've said so far would be related
> in some way.
It's also true my posting here was directly motivated by the
very first question-sentence of you original post:
> Can physics be derived from pure logic?
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.