At 18:00 +0100 9/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[Gordon]Back to your Philosophy, but hold on you are say that counting
>the shadow Quanta just like a child would with blocks or really
>Quanta,henc implies a system Context it may be number theory but without
>the shapes or forms it not!
This leads to the most interesting question: what is geometry?
A lot of people, like Lucien Hardy or Russell Standish try to "derive" QM
from basic assumptions but most such attempts take some geometry for granted.
In some sense Descartes tried to make arithmetical foundation
for geometry and this has lead to the well known coordinate systems, and then
physics look like finding invariant for coordinate systems changes...
Coordinates give indeed number-representations of things, but we
better should not take those things for granted. In any case the comp
hypothesis forces us
to generalise Klein program for geometry (reducing it to symmetry (group)
theory), making the logical structure of
reality invariant for any change of point of view ...
With comp the UDA shows we
must go from number to consistent comp histories then measure (and statistic
on those histories, and only then we can hope to find a way toward ...
What? commutative geometry above our common level of substitution, non
commutative below. I bet.
>Nonideal Measurments, we have to see more of what is going on in Real
>experiments and not go back to Hilbert space it too limiting.
You cannot be serious. Most quantum weirdness can be described with
two dimensional real vector space and their products.
Perhaps you are dreaming about building a non abelian anyonic quantum
computing machine through some fractional quantum Hall effect?
This is less elementary.
At 17:54 +0100 9/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The point is that both our view cant be proved however within mine we
>have discovered new things and within the Nonrealtiy view we have just
>gone round in circle not getting any where.
Hold on I feel myself belonging to the Reality view as you know. I
do indeed not quite belong to the" Physical Reality" view cause I think
Physical and Psychological are two internal views of number theoretical truth.
That does not mean I don't believe in the physical laws, it means only that I
don't believe physical laws are necessarily the fundamental laws.
> > I don't use QT at all in my approach to the origin of the physical laws.
>> That would make the approach circular.
>[Gordon]So why are you try to explain QT have I missed somthing???
I showed comp force us to derive (aspect of) the laws of
physics from a measure on the consistent machine "dreams".
I should get QT from the other side. I find indeed firstly
the many worlds, then, thanks to the consistency requirement
a sort of abstract geometry appears and I compare
it with the quantum for just verifying comp, or perhaps measuring
some sort of local degree of falsity of comp, who knows?
Even if Freedman or Calude are right and that it exists some
analogical quantum universal machine that would not entail the falsity
of comp. Only if we find evidence that we are ourself such analogical universal
machine then comp would be false. I would not bet on that ... today.
>I never said there was what I am saying is that you have dismiss your
>own mixed up version of these theories without really looking into them
>and assumed that the early pioneers where totally right about there Myth
>work and you took of from there,and by Adding comp to this made it in
>your mind sound more solid.If you really want to go into Psyhco-Mind
>said of things then read Piaget or Sensory loss.It a narrow view you
>take becuase it reject all other explaination of other field in Nature
>and believe that there is nothing but Comp yet does not explain what
>that really means without a Context???
I read Piaget and Oliver Sacks too. It is interesting and inspiring but
remember I talk on the psychology of the sound universal machine. Actually
I just interview such machine (thanks to Solovay) *about* those different
possible (consistent) points of view.
>[Gordon]I guess that Einstein would have had them odds when he was 19
>but that did stop him like the others,same for Godel.Bohm and Deutsch
>are also whtin a msall group but it growning, most of the sheep follow
>the herd now and again some one comes along to shake ther world up.Most
>Math guy's also may not follow you either does that mean your wrong of
>course not stick to your guns even if I think your wrong :)
Y're worrying me. Is it the wrong century or what!?!
At 17:40 +0100 9/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>> >Machine implies a Physical context does it not?
>> Not at all. With the arithmetical realist assumption, machine can
>> be reduced to relations between numbers. Remember that I show how
>> the physical emerges from the arithmetical.
>Ok but how do you form this numbers and there relation from as a Human
Please wait I write a longer english paper but I have still some work
to finish before.
At 17:40 +0100 9/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[Gordon]Sorry but you take on this mixup Philosophy of Mind and these
>assumption when believe that these are the question that QT puts
>forward, which it does not.
But I don't start from QT and, in fine, my "philosophy of mind" is just
classical logic, remember Boole called his book "the laws of thought".
Since Godel Lob we know that that psychology has much more intricateness
due to powerfull self-reference capacity.
>A. ASKING THE OLD AND WRONG QUESTION IN QT
I don't ask any question in QT. Only in computer science and self-reference
>B.ASSUME THAT YOU CAN GET PHYSICAL CONTEXT FROM MATH AND NOT PROVE THIS
>IN IT SELF.
Please I do not *assume* that I can get physical context from math
but I do *prove* that if comp is taken seriously then comp is wrong or the
physical modalities does come from the math. (And I extract a little non
trivial bit of those modalities).
At 18:08 +0100 9/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Very nice post. I agree 100%. At least. I hope you see there is no
>> conflict between your post and my approach to the mind body problem
>> and the origin of the quantum.
>> Note my theory explains how such a reality *faith* can develop itself in any
>> sound (immaterial) universal machine searching its own logical origin.
>[Gordon]Oh yes I think we agree on a lot of things I just play devil
>advcote sometimes, however there has been a double standrad over the
>last 50 years with the fact that we cant prove Physical came at the same
>time as we got somthing weird in QT.And the next thing we know is that
>everyone start rejecting it except a small few who later discover new
>things AB EFFECT,PARTICLE FAMILY,QUBITS ETC...
>Now it a double standard because they forgot to say that we cant prove
>the non-physical either.So I see where you are coming from, but can you
>see what I am getting at.Small few Deutsch Bohm etc...have shown us that
>although we cant prove Physical dont mean its not there just as I cant
>prove your theory totally wrong.But I can say that you must leap beyond
>a larger wall to see it, where I dont.I must admitt it's fun to argue
>the point we have both raise and thanks for getting back to me about
Y're welcome. But remember I am not proposing a theory but only a theorem.
(I could be wrong but please tell me where!)
Ant it comes from a very well shared "theory" (comp). It is Everett's
and David Deutsch's theory of mind BTW.
It is not a matter of choice.
Comp implies the laws of physics MUST be derivable from numbers. Not in the
trivial way that QM can be formally related to the relation between *some*
numbers but in the non trivial way that QM emerges from all possible relations
between *all* numbers.
I don't know and don't really care if comp is true or not.
At 10:47 +0100 11/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In that QT does not ask these Mind changing Reality questions I rest my
>case,as for the question of the totality of Reality remains open one and
>one which even QT can fill fully?
Curious. I don't believe any theories can fill fully the number realm (and that
is a consequence of Godel).
But concerning the physical I would bet on some deep completeness of QT, this
mainly for statistical reason. I would bet QT complete and more than
universal, multiversal actually.
At 10:53 +0100 12/05/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>(Also what about the split brain of a person with two selves which dont
??? I talk a lot about that in my thesis and paper. It is the building
block of the reasoning. Although I prefer to duplicate the whole brain
for making the split perfectly symmetrical. It is the root of the first
person comp indeterminacy which eventually force us aknowledging our
ignorance about which sheaves of computations we belong.
>Now MWI's ->QM without adding collapse assumptions or having to explain
>because QT does not ask this question we have just asssumed it however
>present strutures of Mutliverse limted but testable withe Qubits
>It seems that the later does not havbe as may hurdles to jump through,
>than the former.We is right or wrong is still hard to say but which is
>Now you claim that if 99% of people believe and work within a certain
>sructure then it right and the only way,Wel up untill 1987 99% of
>Physicist and Maths guys and girls believe V.Neunman Proof against
>Hidden varibles just on faith except for Bohm and proved that he was
>wrong,but they ingored him untill Bell push the idea to the
>community.Now we know that an a different interpretation without Hilbert
>space can be used and still have the structure as alge as the
>Now they is also Newton Physics which in the 19 the century guys where
>all sure of and 99% thought that is just time to dot the I's and cross
>the T'S.However a small band of people over through this with
>So when you say that 99% of Math community believe in a certian Bivlanet
>strucutre I say so what at the end of the day Nature will decide who
>closers not me or 99% of you either ;) what ever we say a thing is it
>isnt it always more that we say, right now any single theory trying to
>say all is saying nothing!
Ok the 99% argument is bad, but I was not really pretending the community
believes in bivalent logic just that bivalent logic is the simplest
frame for communicating propositions on fundamental questions including
those on non bivalent logics and their models.
I said once classical logic is just the most polite logic. Probably
because it can take into account that very non constructive notion: the