Hi Brent:

What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular universe. 

My belief is that the best we can do is to predict the components of physics
common to every evolving universe.

My efforts have focused on understanding why there is a dynamic within the
Everything [such as UDs] and what "observers" in a universe containing them
are observing.  

In my model I have identified a dynamic driver [incompleteness] and what
observers observe [TRANSITIONS between universe states]. 

Since I do not prohibit computations, I believe Comp [including any
prediction of QM in many universes] is allowed within my model but is not
the only descriptor of universe evolution.  Many evolving universes may
contain no such computational component.

Hal Ruhl

-----Original Message-----
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations

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.

-- 
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