Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 01:44:05 GMT

> > 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.
>
> No statements about the physical universe may be proved
> mathematically. The best you could do is _model_ the physical
> situation you are interested in with mathematical formalism, and then
> prove the corresponding mathematical statement.

David Hilbert would disagree with that statement, & so do I .

> > 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.
>
> A glaring omission in the above definition is that you haven't defined
> "object". This is a serious problem. We have an intuition about what
> an object is, especially on the macroscopic scale, but we are far from
> having a definition.

Everything which exists is an object. It is impossible to provide a
comprehensive definition of every concievable object, especially if you
consider an ergodic universe.

It suffices to say that my usage of the word "object" is non-abstract. It is
a broad generalization, but it is NOT an abstraction. This is all one needs
to know.

> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Lacking a definition of "physical property."

Get a CRC handbook. It's the thick one with the gold leaf that says "CRC
Handbook".

> > Most uniqueness proofs require 2 things, first you demonstrate
existence,
> > and then you demonstrate uniqueness.
>
> No, just uniqueness. Existence-and-uniqueness proofs require those
> two things.

?

> > 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.
>
> I already have a problem. How can they be distinct and identical? (I
> suppose that is your main point...?)

Thanks. You have supported my claim. It is impossible to be identical "and"
distinct. But how else does one phrase things ? I'm open to suggestions.

> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Your proof doesn't make any sense, mathematically or philosophically.
> The whole issue seems trivial, though.

Thanks for the feedback. Not really the best criticism I've ever read, but
interesting. I dont see many justifications for your positions. I would
probably need some juctifications in order to appreciate your opinion.

If you want to shoot me down I'll give you a big glaring hint. It is called
"counterexample". I am going to go on believing that all physical objects
have the physical property of uiqueness until someone can show me a
counterexample.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... > realized in the physical existence of the universe before heat death. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... Realism holds that these ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... PCs are physical and have all physical parts in a physical universe. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... "The oldest use of the term "realism" comes from Medieval interpretations ...
    (sci.math)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)