Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding altogether fermions and bosons is plain wrong. Best
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:30:03 -0800> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything > based on E8 by Garrett Lisi> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > On Nov 23, 1:10 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > >> > > Now such work raises the remark, which I don't really want to develop> > now, > which is that qualifiying "TOE" a theory explaining "only" forces> > and > particles or field, is implicit physicalism, and we know (by UDA)> > that > this is incompatible with comp.> > Yes indeed Bruno. As far as I tell tell, > all of physics is ultimately> geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list > many times, a theory> of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it > makes the> (probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to > physical> substances and properties. Thus we both are in agreement on this, > but> for different reasons (you because, you think math is the ultimate> > basis of everything aka COMP, me, because of my property dualism, aka> the > need for a triple-aspect explanation of physical/teleological/> mathematical > properties as the basis for everything).> > We keep telling mainstream > scients, but mainstream scients are not> listening to us. *sigh*.> > > Yet I > bet Lisi is quite close to the sort of physics derivable by> > machine's or > number's introspection. Actually, getting physics from so> > "few" symmetries > is a bit weird (I have to study the paper in detail).> > With comp, we have > to explain the symmetries *and* the geometry, and> > the quantum logic, from > the numbers and their possible stable> > discourses ... If not, it is not a > theory of everything, but just a> > classification, a bit like the Mendeleev > table classifies atoms without> > really explaining. But Lisi's theory seems > beautiful indeed ...> >> > Bruno> >> > > There's too many people mucking > around with physics - I do wish more> people were working on computer > science. Physics is the most advanced> of our sciences, but computer science > lags behind. It just seems to> be an unfortunate historical accident that > physical theories developed> first and then lots of social status got > attached to theoretical> physics (stemming from the glorification of Newton > in Europe).> > As a result, physics has advanced well ahead of comp-sci, and > there's> lots of money and status attached to physics breakthroughs. But > comp-> sci is actually far more important to us in practical sense -> > artificial general intelligence would be way way more valuable than> any > fundamental physics breakthrough. We would have had real AGI long> ago if > there was the same money and glory for comp-sci as there is for> physics > *sigh*.> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Tecnología, moda, motor, viajes,…suscríbete a nuestros boletines para estar a la última http://newsletters.msn.com/hm/maintenanceeses.asp?L=ES&C=ES&P=WCMaintenance&Brand=WL&RU=http%3a%2f%2fmail.live.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
