On 09 Jul 2012, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:

On 7/9/2012 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> How do you derive fermions and bosons from comp?

I don't know how to derive fermions and bosons from nothing but arithmetic but you can do the next best thing. If the Schrodinger wave function for a particle is a odd function, that is F(x) = -F(- x), then it's a fermion and the probability of 2 fermions occupying the same quantum state is zero, in other words it obeys the Pauli Exclusion Principle and is the reason that the ground beneath your feet, which is made of fermions, is solid and you don't sink to the center of the Earth.

If the Schrodinger wave function for a particle is a even function, that is F(x) = F(-x), then it's a boson and it can ignore the Pauli Exclusion Principle and is the reason light rays, made of bosons, don't scramble each other when they collide at right angles, light particles can occupy the same quantum state and thus can pass through each other and be completely unaffected; it's the reason the light rays that enter our eye are not a hopeless chaotic jumble of information randomized by a astronomical large number of collisions with other photons.

Yes, that is what I was alluding to by mentionning "à-la-Feynman", as this is well explaiend in his famous lecture notes on physics, notably the one on quantum mechanics.

Yep, I knew that. I thought for a moment that Bruno claimed to derive something like that from comp, but it turns out that all he claims is that if comp is the theory-of-eveything then it must predict everything.

Nowhere is Comp assumed to be the theory of everything. It is just the assumption that "I" am a digital machine (mechanism), to put it shortly.

Then we derive from that assumption that arithmetic is a theory of everything, as good as any other (basically a first order specification of a Turing universal system), and then the derivation is constructive.

It is quite different from what you say.

You did understood the seven steps (not clear for the step 8), but now you seem to have forgotten the points, or even the goal.

The goal is not to replace physics as a science, but to get a correct picture of the possible reality, and the possible fundamental science, once we assume computationalism without putting first person and consciousness under the carpet.

Main result: Aristotle theology can't work. Plato's theology still work.



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