On 10/4/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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).


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.

The manifold doesn't need to be spatial or temporal. Gauge theories are built on rotations in an abstract space. But my point was just that the answer to the question of where do the laws of physics come from is that "We make them up." That answer isn't a surrender to solipism or mysticism because we make them up so that everybody will agree on them at every place and time. And as every time and place is expanded by our use of instruments to extend our range of perceptions it becomes a very strong constraint indeed.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to