Received: by 10.204.13.69 with SMTP id b5mr192793bka.4.1333826626872;
        Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: h15ni97425bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe19.iad.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail
From: Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca>
Reply-To: namducngu...@shaw.ca
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Physics from logic?(Check my math)
References: <83a83c99-f8cd-454e-8e5b-9fba4ffd6823@i16g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <uoPfr.26515$V94.8992@newsfe19.iad> <wrZfr.47045$QC3.18796@newsfe16.iad> <b%Zfr.28373$cd7.12615@newsfe06.iad> <ee93b6b8-0a99-4dd3-9fc0-37dd385d21d8@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <6l0gr.28376$cd7.11489@newsfe06.iad>
In-Reply-To: <6l0gr.28376$cd7.11489@newsfe06.iad>
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <6v0gr.26754$V94.25330@newsfe19.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.0.17.79
X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: newsfe19.iad 1333826626 174.0.17.79 (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
X-Received-Bytes: 3851
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.
>
>> Or
>> 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.

                                       NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------