JRB
- 4
- 1
I understand Demystifier and others this is my first post on a physics forum and I thought later I shouldn't have said that! :)
The discussion revolves around the concept of emergent spacetime, exploring various conjectures and theories related to its nature and origins. Participants examine the relationship between quantum states and spacetime, the implications of holographic theory, and the challenges of defining spacetime without circular reasoning. The conversation touches on theoretical frameworks such as loop quantum gravity and string theory, as well as the philosophical implications of these ideas.
Participants express differing views on the relationship between quantum mechanics and emergent spacetime, with no consensus reached on whether current theories can adequately explain the emergence of spacetime. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the foundational aspects of these theories and their implications.
Participants note the limitations of existing theories and the potential need for new frameworks to address the circularity and foundational issues in defining emergent spacetime. The discussion highlights the complexity of integrating quantum mechanics with concepts of spacetime.
The "paradox" disappears quickly, for example, when you consider that an infinite set is just a set which can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset. If you are interpreting the word "infinite" as "unattainable" (not to use the word "inaccessible", which is the name of one type of infinite set), then you just need to remember that it is only unattainable using a certain collection of axioms, but is perfectly attainable when you add an appropriate axiom. Also, you may be getting "finite" mixed up with "bounded", which is not the same. A finite set is bounded, but a bounded set need not be finite: bounded will mean that there is something which it is less than, and interpreting "less than" as set membership, since an infinite set can be a member of another set, it is easy to see that an infinite set can be bounded.JRB said:Its paradoxical to talk about bounded infinities
That is a problem, since Cantor's Absolute turned out to be rather non-mathematical. There is of course always a kind of absolute from the point of view of a particular theory-model pair, to wit, the universe of that model, but this "relative absolute" was not what Cantor had in mind. For example, the fact that there is no such thing as a greatest ordinal, or Löwenheim-Skolem's upward theorem, and other technicalities made Cantor's idea untenable in mathematics. Of course, the other side of his idea, associating this concept with a divinity, is also outside the realm of mathematics.JRB said:yes I am thinking of Cantor's Absolute
The rest of your questions assume the existence of this Absolute, so since this Absolute is not a tenable notion in mathematics, the answer to those questions is that those assertions do not make mathematical sense. Whether they make some kind of metaphysical sense is not something I would touch upon here.JRB said:Does it make any sense to say