Le 29-sept.-06, à 02:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :    [+ comment 
to John below]

>> Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not
>> yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape
>> (as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of hell,
>> or the state of the fallen soul: the fourth hypostase
> Very funny.  So... I take it you don't like String Theory and think
> loop quantum gravity is the way the truth and the light? ;)

Well, you should not infer this from the fact that I suspect "string 
theories" appears with the 4th hypostases, given that I am rather proud 
of having isolated them.  If you look to "Conscience and Mecanisme" and 
to the Lille thesis you will see that at that time I was (wrongly) 
believing that physics could not occur but in the 4th and 5th 
hypostases. I thought that S4Grz1 collapses. Since then I have been 
able to prove that the 3rd hypostase does not collapse (under the comp 
restriction) but that they already defines an arithmetical quantization 
(that is: proves the main "physical modal formulas: p -> BDp and Bp -> 
p), and I still don't know if this is a good new, except that it shows 
that the pure first person (the "soul") has already a foot in "Matter". 
But that soul's physics is like a pure physics completely detached of 
any "background dependence", and at first sight it is a good place for 
something resembling "Loop Quantum Gravity".
The fourth and fifth hypostases, nevertheless, gives the only physical 
modalities which split through the G/G* distinction so that only them 
can be used for relating the non communicable qualia with the sharable 
quanta. Also they predicts many many exotical geographies, and 
currently, through the Moonshine Mystery + modular speculations, are 
closer to the strings theories.
To be sure the "experimental physicist in me" (if there is any) has no 
competence for judging Loop versus String arguments. On the contrary, 
the many hypostatic nuances forced by the quantization of 
incompleteness (defined by the p-> BDp + inverse Goldblatt transform) 
makes me willing to believe that both Loops and Strings are correct, 
but does not address the same problem.

>> But the point here is that "timelessness critics" are again generated
>> by an internal first person plural view, and to make it ontic would be
>> a nth instantiation of Aristotle fundamental mistake of reifying time,
>> space and matter, despite the beauty feature of loop gravity that 
>> time,
>> space, and particles are fundamentally emergent ....
>> Bruno
> I'm prepared to believe that space and particles are not fundamental
> but are emergent.  However Bruno, I'm not yet convinced the same is
> true for time.  I don't see how time can be removed from our
> descriptions of reality.  I'll read the things you mention at some
> point.

This is a bit weird because there has always been a tradition since 
Pythagoras, Plato, ..., Einstein, ... to consider that time is not part 
of the ontology (except under the form of arithmetical induction axioms 
(which I already put in the epistemology)).
In general people are more "shocked" when I say that comp force space 
to be emergent than when I say that time is emergent.
Note also that I don't remove time from the description of reality, I 
remove time from reality, if only because I recover time in the 
description of reality possible for the self-introspecting machine.

(Mark, let me take your quoting of John Mikes as an opportunity to 
repeat a key point .

>> We may concentrate on the part humanly comprehensible, but in the
>> wholistic view we cannot make it a substantial part of the existence.
>> John M

John, I have already said this, but it is short and important so let me 
repeat: let us concentrate on machine or number comprehensibility, 
instead of humans' one.  Assuming comp, this is substantially larger 
than human's comprehensibility, and still not trivial thanks to 
Also, the more I walk in number theory, the harder it is for me to 
imagine a better wholistic view of a reality where anything is 
connected to anything in a lot of surprising and unexpected ways.
And incompleteness protects numbers against any totalitarian theory 
pretending to unify the truth about them.
Numbers can "see" their limitations, they can find holes in their 
views, and they can see better through those holes. Numbers are saying 
you are right, but you seem not to listen, due to your human prejudice 
against them. I let you chose if that is sad or comical.



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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to