On Nov 23, 1:10 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Now such work raises the remark, which I don't really want to develop
> now, which is that qualifiying "TOE" a theory explaining "only" forces
> and particles or field, is implicit physicalism, and we know (by UDA)
> that this is incompatible with comp.

Yes indeed Bruno.  As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
geometry.  But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the
(probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to physical
substances and properties.  Thus we both are in agreement on this, but
for different reasons (you because, you think math is the ultimate
basis of everything aka COMP, me, because of my property dualism, aka
the need for a triple-aspect explanation of physical/teleological/
mathematical properties as the basis for everything).

We keep telling mainstream scients, but mainstream scients are not
listening to us.  *sigh*.

> Yet I bet Lisi is quite close to the sort of physics derivable by
> machine's or number's introspection. Actually, getting physics from so
> "few" symmetries is a bit weird (I have to study the paper in detail).
> With comp, we have to explain the symmetries *and* the geometry, and
> the quantum logic, from the numbers and their possible stable
> discourses ... If not, it is not a theory of everything, but just a
> classification, a bit like the Mendeleev table classifies atoms without
> really explaining. But Lisi's theory seems beautiful indeed ...
> Bruno

There's too many people mucking around with physics - I do wish more
people were working on computer science.  Physics is the most advanced
of our sciences, but computer science lags behind.  It just seems to
be an unfortunate historical accident that physical theories developed
first and then  lots of social status got attached to theoretical
physics (stemming from the glorification of Newton in Europe).

As a result, physics has advanced well ahead of comp-sci, and there's
lots of money and status attached to physics breakthroughs.  But comp-
sci is actually far more important to us in practical sense -
artificial general intelligence would be way way more valuable than
any fundamental physics breakthrough.  We would have had real AGI long
ago if there was the same money and glory for comp-sci as there is for
physics *sigh*.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to