Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.
From: Ted Night (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Chergarj: "Re: I need curve fitting explained"
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- In reply to: Lefty: "Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:33:11 -0500
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:hKVgd.336355$MQ5.286075@attbi_s52...
>
> OK fellas, last time I was in here it was a veritable bloodbath of
> back-and-forth mathematical snippets of highbrowed humor and cutting edge
> sinicisms. I was forced to accept utter defeat at the hands of superior
> intellects, but I have not forgotten my disgrace, and I am back with a
> vengeance to regain my tattered dignity - to wit :
>
>
> In our last episode I attempted to prove that "No two objects in the
> physical universe are identical". Apparently, this may be reducible to a
> tautology. I am not sure that being a tautology matters much, because we
are
> talking about physical properties of real objects in the universe. If you
> demonstrate a physical property of an object in the universe, then it
dosent
> matter how you did it - tautology or not. A physical property is a
physical
> property, and it matters not how you arrive at the proof of that property,
> as long as the demonstration is valid. Tautologies are trivial within the
> framework or abstract logical systems. If I say that "It is a "fast
photon"
> because it is a "fast photon"" - then at least you know that you have a
> "fast photon". Tautologies are not neccesarily trivial when you're talking
> about real objects.
>
> However, it seems that the original statement might be reducible to a
> question of uniqueness. So, I have the following statement to work with :
> -----------------------------------------------
> "Every object in the physical universe is unique"
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> So, I would like to prove that statement. It is not possible to compare
> every single physical object in the universe in a physics lab, so it must
be
> proved mathematically.
>
> Definitions:
> Physical object.
> Any object in the physical universe which exists. This can be a
person,
> place or thing. A region of space/time is an object. A region of empty
space
> is an object. Locations are therefore objects. Events are objects, as per
> relativity theory. If it exists in the physical universe then it is an
> object.
>
> Unique
> A physical property of an object in the universe such that if an
object
> is unique, then there is no other object which is identical to that
object.
> There is a physical difference between objects which are distinct, and
there
> are no physical differences between objects which are identical.
>
> Most uniqueness proofs require 2 things, first you demonstrate existence,
> and then you demonstrate uniqueness. However, in this case, I cannot prove
> that a physical object exists, it must be assumed (possibly via an axiom).
> So, lets assume that objects really exist in the physical universe, and
try
> something like this-
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> "Every object in the physical universe is unique"
>
> Proof
>
> Suppose not
> Let O1 and O2 be distinct objects in the physical universe which are
> identical.
>
> There are 2 possible cases,
> 1) O1 and O2 are in separate locations
> 2) O1 and O2 are in in the exact same location
>
> Case 1)
> If O1 and O2 are in two separate locations, then they are not
identical,
> and therefore they are both unique.
>
> Case 2)
> O1 and O2 are in the same location and they are also identical in
every
> possible physical respect. They cannot be distinct, because either O1 or
O2
> is trivial and one of them does not really exist.
> If you can have O1 and O2 in the same exact location, doing the same
> exact thing, then let O3, O4, O(n) be identical to O1 and all in the same
> exact location. You now have an infinite number of identical physical
> objects in the exact same spot, which is obviously absurd. A
contradiction.
>
> QED
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Is this science, or have I finally cracked ?
>
>
> WillieK
>
"Every object in the physical universe is unique"
Just define "all objects must exist in the physical universe".
If so, then your statement can be simplified, to:
"Every object is unique"
But here it the problem, you define "unique" only interms of "identical" and
"distinct", and niether are defined specifically. So we still are left to
decide what we want these to mean. It is a mater of scale, if I have a
thousand red tennis balls and they are distinct (don't all reside in the
same space) and they are identical (have all the same characteristics) then
the tennis balls would violate your definition.
"Identical" as a defining term typically does not include "time" as a
quality or characteristic. So we would need to define identical further to
not violate your statement and include time, and perhaps other things, if
you go to the atomic level......... I think one could arrive at a series
of assumptions, and If/then statements, and you statement would be solid
(others would understand the context and logic) Your above logic would
hold, if definitions of items are clearified.
I would also invert or test the converse of the statement to see if the
definition holds with the assumptions "every object is not unique" and so
on.
.
- Next message: Chergarj: "Re: I need curve fitting explained"
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- In reply to: Lefty: "Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
