**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:07:37 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**ben goertzel: "[time 234] Re: [time 231] Re:"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 232] Re: [time 229] Direction of time or Free will"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 229] Direction of time or Free will"**Next in thread:**ben goertzel: "[time 234] Re: [time 231] Re:"

Hitoshi,

Some brief remarks :)

Hitoshi Kitada wrote:

*>
*

*> Dear Ben,
*

*>
*

*> Just a miscellaneous remark on the parallel between math and Big Bang
*

*> theory... (I hope to understand your paper, but the notion of boundary you
*

*> mention in the paper is difficult for me to understand...)
*

I too am very intrigued by this, since, for one thing, the definition

of a boundary is a key component of GR - "the boundary of a boundary is

zero" ... ;)

snip

*> During lecturing to freshmen about real numbers as Dedekind's cuts today, I
*

*> noticed that mathematics itself starts with nothingness as in your treatment
*

*> of "Standard Model." I.e. in the Peano type construction of natural numbers,
*

*> we assume 0 (zero) is defined as an empty set, and define 1 as {0}, 2 as
*

*> {0,1}, 3 as {0,1,2}, ..., for example. Of course this may be natural because
*

*> you are treating numbers: quaternions, octonions, ... . What I felt
*

*> interesting is that this seems the same spirit as Big Bang theory which starts
*

*> with nothingness in "constructing" the universe. I suspect that here seems to
*

*> be a modern "constructionism" spirit that began in the 19 century along with
*

*> Peano, Frege, Gentzen, Cantor, Hilbert, Zermelo, etc. in mathematics.
*

*>
*

*> If Big Bang can be thought as one of those streams, is it not possible to say
*

*> Big Bang is one of the fashions of the modern age after the 19 century?
*

*>
*

*> Best wishes,
*

*> Hitoshi
*

The construction of the Reals from the empty set {0} -> {{0}, {0,{0}},

... in traditional mathematical thinking seems to tacitly assume that

such does not require the expenditure of free-energy or, equivalently,

the creation of entropy. It is this assumption that I call into

question! The tacit assuption of a Big Bang similarly assumes that mere

"vacuum fluctuations" can give rise to a non-trivial construction having

a non-zero duration, e.g. having a finite temporal duration. We can

posit the existence of such within an "ensemble of vacuum fluctuations",

but in order to show necessity, we need to show that *any* duration is

possible. The study of the thermodynamics of the ensemble of such finite

Big Bang universes would have to prove that some non-trivial subset of

them has non-invertible dynamics and that such are capable of acting as

computational systems in that they can bisimulate the construction

process itself in some finite way (cf. [time 125]). Thus we can affirm

that it is possible for subsets of U to be considered as observers

having individual subjective experiences.

BTW, the non-Hausdorf property is obvious in this latter remark since

the possibility of communication of observer's subjective experiences

implies that their sets of observables is not completely disjoint!(cf.

[Time 64])

This "nothingness" is not necessarily an ontological *nothing*! It is

merely the totality Universe U in-itself or a proper subset thereof,

since, prior to partitionaing into finite LSs, it has all possible

properties in a pure state superposition, and as such has the properties

of pure white noise, e.g. "everything at once".

The injection of naive realism into physics, I believe, is the cause of

the tacit assumption that the universe of common experience has, like

the human observer, a finite duration... Thus it well could be that the

Big Bang model is merely a "fashion" ... ;)

Onward to the Unknown,

Stephen

**Next message:**ben goertzel: "[time 234] Re: [time 231] Re:"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 232] Re: [time 229] Direction of time or Free will"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 229] Direction of time or Free will"**Next in thread:**ben goertzel: "[time 234] Re: [time 231] Re:"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:52 JST
*