On 05 May 2014, at 01:36, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues'
that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic
examples show.
I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A
N mind
What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for "mathematical
realism" - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is
inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it
turns out to be "just a bunch of equations", then there will be no
reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations
- as he puts it, "how they look from the inside" ?
Obviously this is speculative, of course,
Well, it is a logical consequence of comp and the weak occam, and I
would say that all theories are speculative, but some more, some less.
in that we don't have a ToE yet.
Come on. I gave a scheme of equivalent TOE.
May be you mean that the mainstream thought has not yet swallow that.
OK, that will take time. We will plausibly become artificial machines
before understanding the consequences.
But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to
indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend
continues and we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical,
would you agree with Max that maths isn't an invention of the human
mind, but something we have discovered about reality? (That it is
even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?)
But I don't think that the term math is precise enough. It is too big,
and cannot be itself entirely mathematical. But with comp, the 3p
truth is arithmetical, and the 1p truth is vastly mathematical, yet
got some irreductible non computable and non digital theological or
psychological aspects.
The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even
recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to
decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if 'analogue' covers them all,
what I would not suggest).
Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital.
However, assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously
differentiable - doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical.
Indeed. And comp justifies entirely why the 3p big thing can be
digital/arithmetical, yet should appear bigger from inside.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
