Russell Standish: >In any case, the most important message is that to construct a TOE, we >need to jump out of the physics perspective.
I agree so much. See also "laws without laws" by J. H. Wheeler. There is an interesting (but wrong IMHO) answer by Deutsch. >However, I don't believe >that the four strands he picks (QM, Church's thesis, Evolution and >Popperian falsification) are the correct components. I suspect we have >a better integration in this mailing list. Definitely QM is in, >likewise information and computation theory (not just the >Church-Turing thesis), Deutsch present his "Church Turing principle" as a physical version of Church's thesis. This is terribly misleading even for someone who believe that physical science is fundamental. >From now on I will always say "Deutsch thesis" for his "Church Turing principle". Deutsch thesis is intrinsically very interesting but is completely independant (a priori) from Church's thesis. I suspect that Church's thesis could very well entails the falsity of Deutsch thesis. >I suspect that evolution is a second order >phenomena (in the sense that hydrodynamics is a second order theory of >molecular dynamics). I don't really see where Popperian epistemology >fits in, except as a theory of evolution about knowledge - almost a >third order theory??. Remember that with Pure COMP (as opposed to Mallah's Physical COMP), in some sense Psychology is O-order and particules Physics is very high-order. Bruno.
