On 10/4/2011 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you
write: "they will all see the same laws" are you referring to those
invariant quantities and relations/functions with respect to
transformations of reference frames/coordinate systems (which has
become the de facto definition of physical laws) or are you
referring to our collective human idea of physical laws?
Why does it seem to me that you assume that the physical laws
that we observe are the only possible ones? To badly echo Leibniz:
How these and not some others? It seems to me that we observe
exactly the physical laws that are consistent with our existence as
observers within this universe, a universe where we can communicate
representations of the contents of our 1p to each other.
Communication requires a plurality of possible 1p for each and every
separate observer in one universe to act as the template from which
signal is distinguished from noise, plurality is insufficient to
communications between observers. One needs something like the
Hennessy-Milner property
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hennessy-milner+property&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart>
for a coherent notion of communication.
There seems to be no a priori reason why we do not experience a
universe that contains only a single conscious entity or a universe
with completely different laws along with completely different
physicality for the observers wherein. IMHO, There is something to
the self-selection that Nick Bostrom tedand others have writen about
that needs to be included in this discussion in addition to the
contraints that communications between many separate entities generates.
The conservation laws come from the requirement that we want our laws
to be the same for everyone at every time and place. This is our
idea of "laws". I'm sure you're familiar with Noether's theorem and
how she showed that conservation of moment comes from the requirement
of invariance under spatial shifts, etc.
That is beautiful and rather convincing.
My friend Vic Stenger has written a book, "The Comprehesible Cosmos",
which shows how this idea extends to general relativity, the standard
model, gauge theories, etc. and provides a unified view of physics.
I recommend it.
The part of physics is interesting, but if he would take more
seriously the mind-body problem, I think he would appreciated the comp
new form of invariance for the physical laws: that is, that the laws
of physics do not depend on the initial universal theory. It does not
depend on the choice of the computation-coordinates (the phi_i).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
Hi Brent,
I am taking Noether's theorems into account. Furthermore, you might
note that those theorems collapse if there does not exist spatial and/or
temporal manifold.
Hi Bruno,
Did you happen to have any comment on the rest of my post? It seems
that you are intentionally avoiding my argument.
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.
