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 [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
.
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 [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.
