Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

26 views
Skip to first unread message

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
May 15, 2019, 11:43:23 AM5/15/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.



(This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)

From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/

"Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):



The final slides:

----

The Continuum Hypothesis is settled

On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.

The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
models are connected and how one may reach them from each
other while preserving or omitting certain features.

Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
most important essential facts are known.

Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
mathematical world or many

----

Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.

         Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax (to some extent) and semantics!

If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible theories on that reality.

It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many mathematical worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with realism, on the contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which everybody agree. The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of set theory, on which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all models of the theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in analysis. With Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but have became phenomenological. 





There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.

For example (as Hamkins shows) the CH is true in one dialect (of set theory) and false in another.

That was shown by Cohen and Gödel.

Interestingly, ZFC and ZF + CH does not prove more arithmetical propositions than ZF alone. The arithmetical truth is totally independent of the axiom of choice or the continuum hypotheses.

Now, ZF proves much more theorems in arithmetic than PA, which proves much more than RA. 

Bruno




@philipthrift


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ca3480-cdf1-426b-9f38-404bc2fa1550%40googlegroups.com.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07CE2D6F-E36D-45E6-883E-E9A13C4812B3%40ulb.ac.be
.

Samiya Illias

unread,
May 15, 2019, 10:48:00 PM5/15/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
The Quran presents a similar idea of one gigantic sky layered into seven skies, each with its own laws/commands/affair. Please read excerpt below 

...
Revisiting Surah alFussilat (Explained in Detail), we read: 

ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ ائْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا قَالَتَا أَتَيْنَا طَائِعِينَ
فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِي كُلِّ سَمَاءٍ أَمْرَهَاوَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ

Then He directed (Himself) towards the heaven while it (was) smoke, and He said to it and to the earth, "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly."
Then He completed them (as) seven heavens in two periods and He revealed in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the heaven, [the world] with lamps and (to) guard. That (is the) Decree (of) the All-Mighty, the All-Knower. 

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 15, 2019, 11:07:55 PM5/15/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
And why should I care what the Quran says?

Brent
"Science flies to the moon.  Religion flies into buildings."
   --- Vic Stenger

Samiya Illias

unread,
May 17, 2019, 6:01:51 AM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Explained in Detail.jpg

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d861ab86-684d-0891-fad0-e45956c25daa%40verizon.net.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 17, 2019, 8:34:10 AM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?

With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations are enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the weaker Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).

To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse remains to be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject. 

Bruno




Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 17, 2019, 8:37:49 AM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 16 May 2019, at 04:47, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Quran presents a similar idea of one gigantic sky layered into seven skies, each with its own laws/commands/affair. Please read excerpt below 

...
Revisiting Surah alFussilat (Explained in Detail), we read: 

ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ ائْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا قَالَتَا أَتَيْنَا طَائِعِينَ
فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِي كُلِّ سَمَاءٍ أَمْرَهَاوَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ

Then He directed (Himself) towards the heaven while it (was) smoke, and He said to it and to the earth, "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly."
Then He completed them (as) seven heavens in two periods and He revealed in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the heaven, [the world]


Are you identifying the Heaven with the physical world? That is Aristotelian metaphysics, indeed introduced in Islam by Al Ghazali, but that is the idea that Plato and Mechanism are questioning.

That is less blasphemous than saying that a human is a god, but that is not so far from it, in platonism perspective.

Bruno





Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 17, 2019, 8:43:31 AM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 16 May 2019, at 05:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

And why should I care what the Quran says?

The neoplatonist reading of the Quran has lead to Enlightened Islam, which has lead to Averroes, and eventually European coming back to science (except for the missing theology).

The Aristotelian reading of the Quran has lead to the elimination of person, the literalism in religion, obscurantism and wars.

It is bit the same with the bible and the gospel, but it looks like Maimonides has prevented the jews to fall in the theological trap. 

Those who try to convert other people just spread their lack of belief in God, or better in <No-Name>.
If they trust God, they trust it means, and let HIM/HER/IT to do the job.

Bruno



Brent Meeker

unread,
May 17, 2019, 2:51:07 PM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
It always comes down to threats, doesn't it.

Brent
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages