**From:** David Picón Álvarez (*eleuteri@myrealbox.com*)

**Date:** Fri Jun 22 2007 - 15:28:13 MDT

**Next message:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Previous message:**Charles D Hixson: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**In reply to:**Charles D Hixson: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Next in thread:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Reply:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*> FWIW, it's recently been shown that to explain the universe of
*

*> mathematics one needs not only a large number of axioms, but an infinite
*

*> number of axioms. (I forget just which order of infinity this is, but
*

*> it's larger than C.) And math is an attempt at a simplified abstraction
*

*> of the universe.
*

I wouldn't call maths an abstraction of the universe. Maths can describe

anything, even things which have no existence in the universe, so I'd expect

mathematics to be bigger than the universe in terms of complexity.

--David.

**Next message:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Previous message:**Charles D Hixson: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**In reply to:**Charles D Hixson: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Next in thread:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Reply:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT
*