I would appreciate that the trolling of my thread stop. Please take your interesting but not obliviously (to me) related discussion to a different thread. Thanks.
On Mar 6, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 05-mars-08, à 16:11, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> To tackle the math of that "physical bord", I use the Godel Lob > >> Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL). > > > Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory? > > I am not sure we could ever *know* a physical law, but of course we can > believe or bet on some physical theory, and make attempt to refute it > experimentally. > (Also it is not *my *theory, but the > Pythagoras-Plato-Milinda-Descartes-Post-Church-Turing theory, that is, > the very old mechanist theory just made precise through digitalness). > > But, yes, that digital theory makes possible to derive > verifiable/refutable propositions: > > -existence of many "physical" histories/worlds, and some of their > indirect effects. > -verifiability of the many interference of the probabilities for any > isolated observable when we look to "ourselves" at a level below the > substitution level. > -observable non locality in the same conditionS. > - non booleanity of what the observables can describe (sort of Kochen > Specker phenomenon) > - It explains and predicts the first person (plural) indeterminacy (I > don't know any simplest explanation of how indeterminacy can occur in a > purely deterministic global context btw). > (+ the first person expectation like the comp-suicide and its quantum > suicide counterparts, etc.) > > Of course, the problem is that, *a priori* the theory predicts too > much: the white rabbits, like I sum up usually. But then I show that > the incompleteness constraints (a one (double) diagonalization > consequence of Church thesis) explains why the presence of white > rabbits in that context is not obvious at all. If they remains, after > the math is done, then the comp hyp is refuted. > > The main advantage of this approach is that (unlike most physicalist > program) the person cannot be eliminated, and the mind body problem > cannot be put under the rug. Somehow my contribution consists in > showing that the mind body problem, once we assume the computationalist > thesis is two times more difficult than without, because it leads to a > matter problem, under the form of the white rabbit problem, or, as > called in this list, the (relative) measure problem. > Do you know french? All this is explained in all details (perhaps with > too much details) in *Conscience et > Mécanisme":http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html > > My "result" (not *my* theory) is that evidences accumulate in favor of > Plato's conception of matter (contra the primary matter of Aristotle). > See my Plotinus paper for more precision on > this:http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf > > > or something that could be checked experimentally? > > There is a possibility of stronger form of Bell's inequality. To > progress on this open problem you have to study the arithmetical > quantum logics I am describing in most of my papers. Eric Vandenbusch > has solved the first open problem, but a lot remains. But my modest > result is that with comp, we *have to* extract physics (the > Schroedinger equation), not a proposal of a derivation, just a reason > why we must do that, and a proposal of a path (the Loebian interview) > for doing that. > > What is your opinion about Everett? You can see my reasoning as an > application of Everett's natural idea that a physicist obeys the > physical laws in the mathematician/mathematics realm (or just > arithmetics, combinators, etc.). I can understand that people in > trouble with Everett can be in trouble with the comp hyp and its > consequences. > > My *type* of approach consists in just illustrating that Mechanism has > empirically verifiable consequences. > *My* theory of everything, deduced from the comp hyp is just (Robinson) > arithmetic: all the rest emerge from internal points of view. They are > similar (formally or 'relationaly') to Plotinus' hypostases. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---