"Their lives were not about speeches and polemics. Their lives were about getting through one more day."
-- David Halberstam in _The Reckoning_.

Paul R. Martin writes:
"... it would now be appropriate to explore the alternative consequences of denying the axiom of choice . . ."


sounds good

"If the axiom of choice is denied, then we may not suppose that any set is defined beyond what some person or machine has explicitly defined it."

"...all computing devices, including human brains, have limits on the size of numbers which have been, if not may be, involved in any computation."

Assumption ( I hope this will be clear enough )
Regarding application to theoretical physics:
The universe's cybernetic causation hierarchies branch where there is infrastructure...either at simple randomizing branches or more mysterious ones, such as in a pliant human brain, the
"mathematically profound" reverie chamber.

Question:
In order to prove that "denying the axiom of choice" helps in control and prediction of physics phenomena which may branch in human brain, would it require blunt control to make sure the brain's activities are kept from transcending the mathematical model, such as a free person's tendency to try using alternate brain computational methods?

• same post without so much boldface - carefuluniverse - December 23, 2001 - 18:35 UTC
  • NO blunt control needed...Well,maybe... - yanniru - December 23, 2001 - 19:35 UTC
    • I dn't care to hear from you. Bad money chases out good - carefuluniverse - December 23, 2001 - 23:59 UTC
    • You must choose now !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !@ - carefuluniverse - December 24, 2001 - 04:13 UTC
      • That is existentialism - yanniru - December 27, 2001 - 16:13 UTC
        • of course - spazcon - December 28, 2001 - 03:43 UTC