FOM: Tragesser on sets in physics
pratt at cs.Stanford.EDU
Thu Feb 26 16:59:38 EST 1998
From: Robert Tragesser <RTragesser at compuserve.com>
> There is no parity between fundamental physics
If by "parity" you mean "correspondence", this seems too sweeping a
statement to have any hope of being universally true.
It would be reasonable to say that *some* correspondences between physics
and sets don't work out. For example the wavefunctions making up the
quantum mechanical universe don't form a set, they form a Hilbert space.
But fundamental physics does not deal only with unobservable
wavefunctions, it also deals with observables, such as position and
energy. At that level physics draws a fundamental distinction between
particles and waves. On the one hand everything can be understood as
being both a particle and a wave, on the other some entities are more
particle-like and some more wave-like.
The obvious correspondence between the particle-wave dichotomy of physics
and the sand-glue dichotomy of my previous message matches up particles
to sand and waves to glue. In this correspondence the elements of sets
are particle-like while the nature of glue is (in the microcosm of atomic
Any connection of this sort between particles and sets suffices to refute
the sweeping "no" of your statement.
More information about the FOM