Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:02:37 GMT

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2uj4fuF2aba3fU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Lefty wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> The absolute uniqueness of objects is irrelevent. One is interested in
> general behaviour of a class of objects which have some properties in
> common. So if you want to figure out the trajectory of a cannon ball of
> a certain mass with a given powder charge, absolute uniquess is
> irrelevent, which is what I have been trying to tell you.
>
> It is not that pure proof is wrong. Your proof is totally irrelevent in
> the context of scientific investigation.
>
> If you want to figure the odds of drawing a ball of a given color from
> an urn, the fact that two distinct balls in the urn is not the point. It
> is how many of one color and how many of another color that count.
>
> Your fixation on absolute uniqueness would make any general statement
> impossible. If you look at -any- scientific theory you find at least one
> postulate which is universally quantified. That means it applies to a
> class with many objects.
>
> Bob Kolker

Thanks for that feedback. Here's my reply -

Uniqueness of physical objects is a very fundamental property. The fact that
it is a property of physical objects makes it interesting in and of itself.

I dont think that there is a single physical property in chemistry or
physics which is considered "insignifigant". Everything is signifigant, as
long as it is valid.

I have found a property of physical objects which applies to every object in
the universe. The relevance for math is that I am trying to prove something
rigorously - and the proof is being applied to real physical objects and not
abstract ones. The relevance for physics is that you know that every object
in your physical universe is unique - sort of like in R3 where every single
point in R3 is unique. This is a fundamental physical property - should be
noted in CRC handbook.

It is relevant. You'll never prove continuity unless you get past stuff like
this. Maybe the proof is wrong. I need to know.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... It is because of the nature of matter that there IS no physical ... But, I'm game, what's the physical uniqueness ... He assumed that it wasn't necessary for the aether to ... We ain't do in physics yet, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Math Theories and Physical Theories.
    ... Conservation of energy and momentum. ... balls banging on little balls. ... physics is happy to learn about the "more" beyond these pedestrian ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... The mythical Galileo who climbed ... > balls was the scientist. ... > Abdus Salam received a Nobel Prize in Physics for unifying the strong and ... > was a philosopher up to that point, and then became a physicist, or that he ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... your fixation with balls and vases. ... I never said that was a formulation of the problem. ... the vase, and the set of balls removed from the vase. ... to known physics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> I think a physicist would say that the time scale is getting exponentially ... You will not be certain whether the balls are inside or outside as ... >This proves that the vase will be non-empty in the first place. ... Are you still trying to claim that physics only allows for ...
    (sci.math)