-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following: >> On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal<[email protected]> > > ... > >> >> The idea that our theories are approaching some metaphysical truth is >> essentially just the same as assuming there is some more >> comprehensive and coherent theory. I note that Hawking and Mlodinow >> recently suggested that we might accept a kind of patch-work set of >> theories of the world, rather than insisting on a single coherent >> theory. > > Could you please give references to such a statement? In my view, > this is exactly the way to implement efficiently some simulation of > the world. It is unnecessary for example to simulate atoms until > some observer will start researching them. Ah ah, ... but so you can guess that it would be more easy for arithmetic too, in that case. That (a need for patch-work theories in physics) could happen if the partially sharable numbers' 'dreams' don't glue well enough. But we don't know that. It is 'just' an open problem in the frame of comp. Arithmetical evidences and empirical evidence is that the dreams glue pretty well, I would say. I think Hawking and Mlodinov are assuming that the fundamental reality is physical. The fact that the physical needs patch-work set of theories does not entail that the big picture needs that too, as comp (uda) and "formal arithmetical comp" (auda) illustrate precisely. The fact that physicists can arrive to such extremities illustrates perhaps an inadequacy of the metaphysics of Aristotle. Bruno *** Dear Friends, If I may. A review of the Hawking and Mlodinov book can be found here: http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-of_30.html While I can only speculate about gluing dreams together, I would like to see more detail of “an inadequacy of the metaphysics of Aristotle”. As a student of philosophy I am interested in such arguments. Onward! Stephen -- 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.
