On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although
I'm not sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that. Quantum
physics, as we've formulated it depends on a continuum.
Brent,
Can you elaborate on why
On 9/13/2014 6:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although I'm not sure
why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that. Quantum physics, as
Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably
collapse - etc. But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would
imagine most mathematical universes wouldn't support life though.
On 13 September 2014 17:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM,
On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably collapse -
etc.
The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite dimensional.
But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would imagine most mathematical
universes
On 13 Sep 2014, at 4:57 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Zero, even though they were all superstars and doing quite well for
themselves. Sure, there are examples
Thanks Brent. If you could prove it would be impossible to formulate a
quantum theory without continuous values and probabilities, that would be
ironic.
Terren
On Sep 13, 2014 12:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2014 6:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM,
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
It's not really that profound methinks, though I enjoy greatly your
detailing of the fascinating love/hate between Gus and Arnie. Actually they
were a couple of Jewish intellectuals competing with each other in the way
On 14 September 2014 10:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably
collapse - etc.
The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite
dimensional.
Of course, but Newtonian
On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
One counter argument is to note that math has been unreasonably
effective in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics,
non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and other theories which we now think
were mere
On 12 September 2014 17:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis
with nothing theoretical to back it up.
I'm not sure about that. He does go on about properties we'd expect the
universe to have (I think that runs
On 12 Sep 2014, at 03:09, ColinHales wrote:
Hi Liz (Your post is below),
Seriously dropped the ball on email on this. Apologies.
Deeply impoverished? How on earth can the preamble indicate
richness? I wish! J
My sole purpose all along is to build hardware that replicates brain
On 12 Sep 2014, at 03:36, LizR wrote:
Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take
me a while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion.
Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate
mathematically (adverb), but cannot be claimed to 'be'
On 12 Sep 2014, at 04:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/11/2014 6:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take
me a while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion.
Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate
mathematically
On 12 Sep 2014, at 07:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Liz,
As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a
hypothesis with nothing theoretical to back it up.
One aspect of his hypothesis is that the creation of matter requires
math that is both consistent and complete.
Whereas Godel
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:23 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 September 2014 17:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis
with nothing theoretical to back it up.
I'm not sure about that. He does go on
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Zero, even though they were all superstars and doing quite well for
themselves. Sure, there are examples of great selflessness in the name of
stepping forward together too, but this is rather
On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
One counter argument is to note that math has been unreasonably effective
in
Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics, non-relativistic
On 13 September 2014 05:48, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
I've read both and I don't think Max is/has pursued the rabbit hole of
implications of possible comp as far or as thorough as Bruno.
I agree. I just stuck with Max because his version is more straightforward
On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
One counter argument is to note that math has been unreasonably
effective in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid
On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
One counter
Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take me a
while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion.
Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate
mathematically (adverb), but cannot be claimed to ‘be’ the mathematics.
Being predictive with/using
Or chs 9-14 of course! (In fact I hadn't even opened your 2nd email when I
wrote that...)
I will do my best to have a look at the book, and if I have any sensible
comments I'll get back with them.
On 12 September 2014 13:36, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously I haven't read the PDF file
On 9/11/2014 6:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take me a while - but I do
(mildly) take issue with this assertion.
Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate
mathematically
(adverb), but cannot be claimed to ‘be’
Liz,
As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis with
nothing theoretical to back it up.
One aspect of his hypothesis is that the creation of matter requires math
that is both consistent and complete.
Whereas Godel has seemingly to me proven that such math does not
24 matches
Mail list logo
