XPost: sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 18:33 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 11/10/2025 11:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:01 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   >> ...   
   >>>>> I don't go looking for paradoxes,   
   >>>>> since there aren't any in a real theory,   
   >>>>> contradictions though automatically   
   >>>>> make for counterexamples, then about   
   >>>>> the "analytical bridges",   
   >>>>> or ponts is what I call them,   
   >>>>> not the "invincible ignorance".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The "A-Theory" is consistent foundationalism,   
   >>>>> and complete, yay, even constant and concrete.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I never even heard of "set theory" until my mid-20's,   
   >>> of course though "sets" were introduced in 7'th grade   
   >>> geometry, which was mostly 8'th graders.   
   >>>   
   >>> Churchill was the text in the college logic course,   
   >>> about the same time I started reading Hegel. I found   
   >>> the de Morgan's rules of direct implication most useful.   
   >>> I have a copy of it around here. The contrapositive   
   >>> is considered the only needful rule.   
   >>   
   >> Churchill had written about logic?>   
   >>> So, model theory is defined as there existing a model   
   >>> meaning there exists a structure, embodying all matters   
   >>> of relation as they may be, of a theory its objects.   
   >>>   
   >>> So, Goedel helps show that _ordinary_ theories like   
   >>> as after Russell's retro-thesis, can't be consistent   
   >>> and complete.   
   >>   
   >> A model and reality are two distinct entities.   
   >>   
   >> Therefore, a model cannot describe reality as reality is, because a   
   >> model is usually way simpler then even the smallest parts of nature are.   
   >>   
   >> So we cannot have both: 'sharpness' of a model and its usability.   
   >>   
   >> If the description is quite good, the model will become practically   
   >> impossible to use. If it should be usable, the model needs to simplify.   
   >>   
   >> Also Goedelian 'completeness' is nonsense, because models of any kind   
   >> can only address some subset of what we could eventually model.   
   >>   
   >> TH   
   >>   
   >> ...   
   >   
   > How about infinity?   
   >   
   > It's simple enough to have infinity be unbounded, endless,   
   > yet, deductively it's arrived at the thought experiments   
   > of Zeno, and it can only be that it's complete infinity,   
   > to be actual, the motion, continuity.   
      
      
   I have a distinct idea about infinity, which you most likely cannot   
   understand.   
      
   I personally think, that the universe has more dimensions than what we   
   think.   
      
   I think, that our perception of some sort of underlying reality is not   
   real, but a picture, which we receive from the past.   
      
   That picuture is also called 'past light cone'.   
      
   We 'cut' the 'real universe' into some sort of observations by being   
   somewhere and look at the world from there.   
      
   This creates a picture, which we can see in the nicht sky. And what we   
   see there is called 'universe', even if that ain't true, because it is   
   actually our own past light cone.   
      
   That 'real deal' is something that we can see, but only from our own   
   perspective.   
      
   The underlying reality seems to be a field, which behaves as if it would   
   be composed from complex quaternions.   
      
   That 'something' is what I call 'spacetime' (of GR).   
      
   Now I had written kind of book called 'Structured spacetime' about how I   
   think, that observetions could eventually emerge, that look exactly like   
   our universe:   
      
   https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wT   
   xBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing   
      
   Now back to infinity:   
      
   This 'real universe' has no time per se, but time is local there only.   
      
   Any spot has its own time and that time 'flows' and builds a path, which   
   we could call 'worldpath' of that spot.   
      
   But we could divert from that path and create a new worldline, which   
   bends away from the old one.   
      
   Such worldline can curve (a little) and could eventually curve backwards.   
      
   Than we would reach a realm, where time flows into the opposite   
   direction (compared to the one we started with).   
      
   Now: from this would follow, that infinited distances could be traveled,   
   even if the universe is actually finite.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)