On 09/23/2017 09:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Here the idea is the tendency to entropy as
> an example of a physical principle which these
> days is a usual example that the logic supports
> directly, here entropy and "0's and 1's" and
> also the tendency to follow construction syllogism
> or completeness. (Proper.) The idea is that the
> physics has that as an example, the entropic principle,
> the disorganization, entropy, or for example Cantor space
> 2^w with 2 being {0,1} (why not von Neumann's ordinal).
>
> So, physics has this as an example where otherwise
> and besides that it's considered quite rather fundamental,
> the entropy principle about the gradient toward entropy
> here still has that everything results from its structure or
> the structure of gradient as the combination of all the impulses
> (all which go to the gradient).
>
> This is while entropy is through all the constructive lines and
> it's simple.
>
> Then the results of the space of all the Cantor sets aren't
> exactly necessarily what you'd expect from the construction
> in the space of all the words.
>
> This is for example if they were all random or as from random
> among them, half of the sequences of the Cantor space have
> equal 0- and 1-densities, that with 0 and 1 being all of those then
> that there are half of them, the sequences that way, where as
> from the sampling method it would be "all" or "none", an example
> of drawing the middle of zero and one and calling it one half.
>
> Then the point is that it's in terms of bringing the physical models
> or examples into the logic discussion, it quickly applies.
>
> It quickly applies, the logic.
>
> Then here it's what to makes sense of the "not exactly necessarily
> what you'd expect" (or there's no other reason to expect or strongly
> expect) that that half of them have equal zero and one densities when
> in the classical, for example from two onwards, the expectation from
> sampling goes to zero, then basically works up the aggregate as from
> the 1's and 0's or here along the lines of branching for example.
>
> So, "Borel versus combinatorics" is an example different from physics
> looking for mathematics, it's mathematics looking for physics.
>
> (Here that's for the physical principles and in terms of that, then,
> where otherwise simpler syllogisms suffice.)
>
> So, in all sorts of laws of convergence and small and large numbers,
> and those are finding even more examples in the dynamical systems
> of not just large numbers also then infinities, with more examples.
>
> This sits quite properly directly in probability theory.
>
>