Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.

From: Gen Gerhard Back (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 22:35:35 -0500

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:5NWgd.278935$wV.268859@attbi_s54...
>
> "Ted Night" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:2uiq44F2atmjqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
> > news:hKVgd.336355$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.
>
> How else to do such a thing ? After all, physical objects are not numbers.
> The definition might need a little polishing, but objects are either
> identical to each other or they are not. I claim that they cannot be,
> because even if they are identical in every respect, they _still_ occupy
> different locations - and therefore are "non-identical".

Perhaps it is the term Identical, it is not needed, as everything is
not-identical.
So the construction can exclude "identical" completly because it cannot
exist in the space you have constructed.

So "every object is unique" would stand. And there is no concept of
"identical". Perhaps Self-Identical, but that is redundent.

>
> The intuitive understanding of these words, taken strictly, would
> approximately suffice I think.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> The statement claims that the balls cannot be identical because for two
> objects to be identical, they would also be in the same exact location.
>
> You have 1,000 red balls, each of which is unique, according to the
> hypothesis in question. I think that their uniqueness has been proved,
> mathematically. This is a physical property of "real objects", proved via
> mathematical proof.

But they are not Identical, but are unique, by location. So the definition
of Unique needs Identical removed from it.

>
>
> > "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 also defined regions of space/time as objects. It's in the definitions
in
> the original post.
>
> Example - Define any reagion of space/time in the physical universe. Call
it
> R1. R1 at t1 is unique, according to my proof. R1 at t1 is not the same as
> R1 at t2. R1 has aged.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> That was done in the proof using O1 and O2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A markov/probability question
    ... In cases where basket has balls of less than c colors, ... So, essentially, I need to compute the probability that we will violate ... >>departure in each unit time. ... Thus, in every window of c unit time, balls of c ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Nearly there
    ... >>> few spelling mistakes and so on, IT IS under construction. ... At least you've got the balls to ask for peoples opinions on ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.rec.radio.cb)