on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ...

Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their
theories fits enough a reality. The theories and the reasoning
can be presented informally or formally. Rigor has nothing to do
with formalization, but a lot to do with clarity. It is also
better that the theory/assumption are shared by many, because ...
it is more fun.

How would you define what a physical law is?

Empirically: physical laws are the laws which can relate what I can observe and share with others.

How to distinguish then a law and a correlation?

Assuming digital mechanism, after the UDA reasoning,  the physical
laws are no more primitive laws, inferable from observation, but they
emerge from the coupling consciousness/reality itself emerging from
the additive/multiplicative structure of numbers. The laws of physics
are no more fundamental. The emergence is enough constrained as to
make the mechanist assumption testable. If we are in a 'matrix', we
can verify it. (mechanism entails we are in a matrix, actually in an
infinities of matrix, existing platonistically in the structure of numbers+addition+multiplication. Note that this makes the ultimate physical laws much more solid: such laws are shown to have a reason.

Let me continue with my question. So we have observations and then we make some model. It could be of empirical nature or we say that this model is a law. How do we know when a model becomes a law?

The reason I am asking is that recently I have read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green about the superstring theory. For some
reasons physicists insist that they can find Equation of
Everything.

Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug, and they usually confuse everything with
everything-physical. This has been a fertile methodological
simplification, but it breaks in front of the 'hard consciousness
problem', or the mind-body problem.

Could you please recommend some modern books in this respect?

Say I have just listened to audio book

Best of the Brain from Scientific American: Mind, Matter, and Tomorrow’s Brain
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/09/what-crazy-scientists-make-with-brain-nowadays.html

and they have found an effective way to treat depression: plant an electrode to some brain area (area 25) and put a voltage. Could it be also a way in the future to solve the mind-body problem? A couple of electrodes, some voltage pattern, and that's it?

Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to