We are our reflections with own choice to veto, from other mirror universes far away. Also called "Reflective Multiverse" (see: Paul Gorbow) see also:
The Base for the Ultimate Theory of Everything (TOE) is the reflective entangled multiverse:
1: Cramer's TI is the same as CP ( Charge Parity) symmetric Multiverse entanglement. (clocks are running only backwards over there)
TI is: Transactional Interpretation of John Cramer.
2: Libet's measurement results (RPI and RPII) are the measurement proof example of TI.
1: Cramer's TI is the same as CP ( Charge Parity) symmetric Multiverse entanglement. (clocks are running only backwards over there)
TI is: Transactional Interpretation of John Cramer.
2: Libet's measurement results (RPI and RPII) are the measurement proof example of TI.
3: Bohmian Double Slit Interpretation by Dual Entangled Universes, and the Benjamin Libet experiment.
see also: https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-base-for-limited-theory-of.html see:
The Cyclic Undivided Raspberry multiverse:
or:
Recent Reference:
CLLAM Seminar: Paul Gorbow
EVENEMANG
Datum: 26 april 2019 10:00 - 26 april 2019 12:00
Plats: D 700
The reflective multiverse of set theory
I present a construction of a model of an expansion of set theory. It embodies a conception of a multiverse of universes of set theory, with an untyped notion of truth-relative-to-a-universe. The construction is partly motivated by philosophical concerns, which I am in the process of pondering. As this is work in progress, I'm keen to hear your feedback.
As a foundation for mathematics, set theory is a formal system for constructing and reasoning about an extremely wide range of abstract objects. However, it follows from Gödel's second incompleteness theorem that no such foundational system grants us the power to construct a model of that system itself. Given this situation, what is the significance of having proofs from the axioms of a set theory such as ZFC? Here are three potential answers to this question:
1. The conclusions of proofs from ZFC are true about sets.
2. The conclusions of proofs from ZFC are true in every structure satisfying ZFC.
3. For a proof p from ZFC to gain significance it needs to be interpreted in a particular mathematical structure, e.g. as establishing a fact about the real numbers.