Re: Cantor and the binary tree

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Hi, Ross,
>
> Don't you believe in the big bang 14*10^9 years ago? Don't you believe
> in relativity including a limit velocity? If so, how can you maintain
> your claim?
>
> Regards, WM
>

Hi,

I'm not sure.

On the face of it, there are at least two objects, the functions
between them are objects, as are theirs and their ad infinitum. The
universe is infinite in scope of those objects, and infinite sets are
equivalent.

About time and light speed being a constant, there are some reasons to
consider why perhaps distance and time are related in ways thus that
light speed is a constant, besides the first second after the/a "Big
Bang" event.

The origin is everywhere. Select a point in view, and imagine the the
three axes of distance dimensions about it. Along those axes at each
inch or centimeter there is a point in space, and that's a very large
reference frame.

Speaking of events, the Einsteinian event is basically a four
dimensional coordinate of sorts, but there's more to it than that.
They're very rich. Anyways unless you see there to be an end of time
or "Big Crunch" then multiply, for you, every Planckian cell, in some
way of space into the space-time's total Planck times you expect by a
coin you flip over and over, each time doubling all of those things.
You might say "the event that does not happen's reality collapses and
does not exist or there would be multiple worlds interpretation." So,
it did.

It might be feasible to greatly narrow the class of events with
instantons. That might be more tractable in some respects. There are
discrete point particles AND continuous wave fields.

Why are you asking me? I'm not a physicist today. I just mention that
there are at least two objects, and that functions between them are
objects and so on and so forth and the universe is infinite and
infinite sets are equivalent.

Surely there are knowledgeable people with whom you can form a
community of like minded thinkers about these issues.

ZF is inconsistent. Boo, hoo.

Ha ha ha ha. Good luck and warm regards. I really must suggest the
null axiom theory because in my search for mathematical foundations,
first order predicate logic appears to fulfill most of my needs, with
the truth. At this point I'm quite pleased with it. Infinite sets are
equivalent.

Ross

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> that all infinite sets are the same size. ... >> The universe is infinite, and, that's empirical proof that infinite ... > its membership in the set P. Whaddya think, Ross? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Well, Ross keeps saying "infinite sets are equivalent", but I don't think he ... So, before I noted corroboration, that argument, that a proper superset ... One notion that has arisen recently is that the probability of two ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: ... infinite sets are equivalent. ... > You keep repeating this mantra like it's supposed to make sense. ... > actually write anything that resembles mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: I am a newly converted anti-Cantor kook!
    ... >> The universe is infinite, ... He means that any two infinite sets have the same cardinality. ... Google on Ross A. Finlayson and the ...
    (sci.math)