On 24 Jun 2012, at 22:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/24/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And then if I luckily succeed in computing the electron mass 9.10938291×10-31kg, Brent will tell me that we already knew that, and ask for something else.

Well if you do it by luck... But of course I'd be very impressed if you could calculate it just from comp+arithmetic. But I'd be less impressed if you just showed that it must be one of all possible numbers.

Sure. We might try to define physics, and with comp, physics is independent of the ontological theory, which is just any UD, or, axiomatical description of a universal system. Physics is independent of the choice of the "base" phi_i. But is the mass of the electron really a physical law, or a contingent fact? I am not sure all actual theories answer this in the same way. I think it is an open problem, necessitating the correct unification of gravitation and quantum mechanics. It is of course an open problem in the comp physics.




More realistically, shouldn't comp+arithmetic be able to make some basic predictions like: QM must be based on complex Hilbert spaces (not real, quateronic or octonic). Or the level at which spacetime is discrete (if it is).

It is too early to address such question, and it all depends technically of the possible semantics for the material hypostases (like S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*). But there are technical reason to believe that it should not be impossible to derive the presence of the necessity of a quantum computing nature of reality, in which case quantum mechanics would be shown to be a necessity. The arithmetical quantization does seem to be able to already implement some quantum gates, except that it looks like some infinities are introduced, and that a full treatment of the measure (not just the measure one) is needed to make it working.

Even for QM, and for QM+GR, or for QED, some people do defend the use of quaternions, or even the octonions. Also, you can derive the quantum digital rule from 5 Stern-Gerlach experiments (like Schwinger did). You get the QM matrices rule from the four first one, and the 5th one imposes the complex numbers. The material hypostases already give the comp quantum logics, and it is just a problem of optimizing the theorem prover to see if the comp physics makes the same prediction, so it might be "relatively easy" to justify the use of the complex numbers, like the use of real number is already justify in the comp physics "intuitively".

But again, I insist, that the comp physics is a necessity with comp. My technical point is that we have no choice in this matter, even if it was just impractical (like the use of string theory is impractical in the kitchen).

And, then the comp physics is the first theory which unifies quanta and qualia, where the empirical physics still ignores the problem by using an ad hoc supervenience thesis which is just incompatible with the comp hypothesis.

Remember that comp is a theory in the mind studies, not a priori matter. It shows that the laws of physics have a reason deeper than an inference from what we can see (which is nice for the applications, but explains virtually nothing).

Bruno





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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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