Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding altogether fermions 
and bosons is plain wrong. Best

> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:30:03 -0800> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything 
> based on E8 by Garrett Lisi> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > > > 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*.> > > > > 
> _________________________________________________________________
Tecnología, moda, motor, viajes,…suscríbete a nuestros boletines para estar a 
la última
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