Oh, funny. But you didn't address the point.
Your original quote was this
"Doesn't matter at all - a, b and {} are just notation. We could use pictures of different species of monkeys if we really wanted to, but that seems a bit stupid."
You could use different symbols, but they still would have to mean something in relation to the other things we associate them with. In the end, this universe is the basis for the math. Therefore the relations must change.
Great. So they have different axioms. But you can still prove all sorts of stuff about infinity and so on, that will still be true whatever universe you're in.
Not really. Because infinity is an abstract concept to you and me here. If we can't even lock in the number 5, as in the 5 loaves, how do you think the big numbers will fare as they presume to approach infinity, and beyond??!
It is perfectly possible to prove mathematical existence. For example, if I give you a continuous function on the interval [a,b] I can prove to you that, for any value in the range of the function, there exists a number between a and b such that the function takes that value at that number. This is called the intermediate value theorem.
Well, when we get into things like
convergence, it gets back to the same thing.
"In mathematics,
convergence describes limiting behaviour, particularly of an
infinite sequence or
series, toward
some limit. To assert convergence
is to claim the existence of such a limit, which may be itself unknown." wiki
And here are a few more terms of math that show that the universe state it is founded in is all important.
"
connectedness"
This depends on what is connected, and we might suppose that depends on the state of the universe.
In
mathematics, the
image of a
function is the set of all possible values (i.e. outputs) of the function. [
what is possible on the other side beggars description in this state]
"he
intermediate value theorem states the following: If
y=
f(
x) is continuous..." wiki
.."In
mathematics, a
continuous function is a
function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output."wiki
An entire universe change is no small change, so you really do need to look at your imagined input and output there.
No they don't. If 1 loaf doesn't represent one loaf (since "a" loaf means just the same as "one" loaf) then you can cook up some new axioms if you like, but I don't care
Well, it did represent one loaf, in the normal PO state. When the spiritual was added, why, we can't use that math any more. So, as I say, it is all fine and dandy here and now, but don't pretend it applies to the heavenly realm.
- ZF mathematics still works, whether it represents anything or not.
Cute. It may work in someones head, but not in the merged state universe.
We might not be able to apply it to your crazy loaves, but who cares.
Well if anyone was trying to take that math to the other side, they would care. If all you want to do is keep it in the fishbowl, why, then it doesn't matter.
No, ZF isn't associated with any "bowl" at all.
Where the bowl is the symbol representing this universe, it sure is. Would you prefer we use monkies for the symbol??
You know zero of mathematical precision. Since "y=2x" isn't related to any state whatsoever.
That depends on what you want it to represent.
Well, that's fine since mathematics is about concepts!
And concepts, like foundations are in a state.
No. Still no. You see,
5 = {{},
{{}},
{{},{{}}},
{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}},
{{},{{}},{{},{{}}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}}
And 40,000 is, well, far too big to write down. Still, 40,000 has far more elements than 5, so 40,000 is not equal to 5.
Depends on what 5. The 5 loaves were equal to many thousands of loaves.
So what happens when you "add the spiritual?" that doesn't do squat to the definition of the number 5, or of 40,000! Those are definitions that we humans cooked up for ourselves, so they stay just where they are.
You think you cooked up numbers??? No. God knew the numbers when He made the universe in 6 days.
Does it really? Redefining, though, is just relabeling. You can decide that 5 is defined as a banana if you really want to, but the old concept of 5 is still there, and we can call it whatever we like, it will behave just the same as that thing which we used to call 5.
Your normal fives will behave that way. But we are not talking normal, we are talking about the other side, and how math of this state does, or does not apply there.
The foundation being our minds? Great.
Well, no, the foundation being the fundamental principles upon which the maths are built.
You think knowledge is foolishness? Well, call me the biggest fool you like. Since I've got no reason to believe it's actually true I'll carry on trying to gain knowledge.
I know man's knowledge is absolute and utter literal foolishness, screaming lunacy, demented dreams, and silly stark raving madness, because God said it was foolishness to Him.
Man can't begin to understand history for example, without the real reasons behind it. For example, the fate of the Roman empire, and Israel, was decided the day they crucified Jesus. Jesus was not on trial, Rome was. The Sanhedrin sealed their countries fate that day as well.
