On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp "model" (theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the whole of physics,

It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that everything happens. But that's not predictive power.

I will take it that you are forgetting the whole argument. When I say that it predicts the whole physics, I mean it literally. And not everything happens only something like what is described by the physical theories, except that physicists derive them from "direct" observation, and comp derives them by the logic of universal machine observable.

Physics, with comp, and arguably already with QM, is not at all "everything happens", but more "everything interfere" leading to non trivial symmetries and symmetries breaking, etc.

Bruno

I don't see that comp has predicted anything except uncertainty. Can comp explain the reason QM is based on complex Hilbert space instead or real, or quaternion, or octonion? Can it explain where the mass gap comes from? Can it predict the dimensionality of spacetime? Can it tell whether spacetime is discrete at some level?

Brent

--
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 
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