On 27 Sep 2012, at 00:02, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
More on this when I have more time. Someday I will give you the
enunciation of Solovay theorem, which is the key here.
Thank you. I look forward to this.
OK. Nice.
verifying most discourses made about them by mystics and open minded
rationalists Indian, Chinese and Greeks. You can take a look at my
"Plotinus" paper for more on this.
Like the neoplatonists, comp leads to a form of platonist
pythagoreanism.
My main point is not a defense of that idea, but that such theory
(mainly comp + classical theory of knowledge) is empirically testable.
It is hard to imagine a more testable theory, as the whole of
physics is derivable from arithmetic in a precise way. Only local
geographies and local histories are not derivable, not even by a god.
Do you consider different geographies to include different places
with different particles or different dimensions of space time, or
do you think comp implies a single physics for all observers. One
like that of our standard model?
Comp implies the same physics for all universal machines. Physics is
really a collection of theorems in elementary arithmetic, or of true
but unprovable (by fixed machine) arithmetical sentences (but this
will concerned more sensible matter than intelligible matter). This
helps to separate the quanta and the qualia. If the mass of the
electron is not derivable from arithmetic, it will mean that it is
geographical, and that we can access to physical realities where
electron will have other mass.
So does comp provide any hints as to which aspects of our local
universe should be universal and which are geographical?
Yes, as the logic of probabilty one for observation (given by S4Grz1,
and/or the X and Z logics) already provides an arithmetical
quantization explaining why the observables cannot be boolean, and are
quantum like, with a MWI formal aspect. It is open if this is enough
to explain why the physical universe looks like a quantum computer,
but all the evidences go in that direction, including the reason why
the bottom is linear and symmetrical. The physical is quantum like,
even "quantum group" like.
The hamiltonians might be more geographical, perhaps. Here some ASSA
might even play some bayesian-like role.
Thanks to S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*, we know already that physics does not
collapse into classical logic. In such a case, physics would have
been shown trivial, and all "phsyical laws" would be local, or
geographical.
It was not 100% clear to me what you meant. Did you mean that we
already know all physical laws are local/geographical,
No. We already know that there are physical laws that are NOT local/
geographical. Mainly the quantum principles. Unfortunately complex
open problems abounds. It is the price of translating directly the
mind-body problem in arithmetic. We get a complex problem in math (the
contrary would have been astonishing though).
or that we already know that all physical laws are not local/
geographical?
That's it.
Thanks,
You are welcome,
Bruno
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.
