On 23 May 2012, at 21:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this
one. The comp "model" (theory) has much more predictive power
than physics, given that it predicts the whole of physics,
It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that
everything happens. But that's not predictive power.
I will take it that you are forgetting the whole argument. When I
say that it predicts the whole physics, I mean it literally. And
not everything happens only something like what is described by the
physical theories, except that physicists derive them from "direct"
observation, and comp derives them by the logic of universal
machine observable.
Physics, with comp, and arguably already with QM, is not at all
"everything happens", but more "everything interfere" leading to
non trivial symmetries and symmetries breaking, etc.
Bruno
I don't see that comp has predicted anything except uncertainty.
UDA predicts indeterminacy, non locality and non cloning. But also
"physics", which physicists take for granted. That UDA explains why
there are appearance of a physical reality (despite its lack of
ontology).
But AUDA does the same thing, + the set of all precise experience
which could refute comp.
Can comp explain the reason QM is based on complex Hilbert space
instead or real, or quaternion, or octonion?
Yes. It should. Probably by showing that they provides the canonical
semantics for the arithmetical quantum logic.
But if you grasp the proof, you know that physics is entirely
derivable from arithmetic.
Can it explain where the mass gap comes from? Can it predict the
dimensionality of spacetime? Can it tell whether spacetime is
discrete at some level?
Yes. it has too, or comp is wrong. Now, in AUDA, some variation are
possible, by adopting more constrained definition of knowledge.
Now the goal was not doing physics, but understanding where physics
comes from, and why it separates into quanta and qualia. UDA reduces
the mind-body problem into that type of explanation. physicists just
ignore such question, for they take both the physical universe for
granted and primitive, and they assume an identity thesis, or a
supervenience thesis, which presuppose implicitly non Turing
emulability of the mind.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
