On 06 Feb 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:

OK, Bruno, I keep looking for some place that your theory might predict something (which is much more impressive than 'explaining').

Comp + Theaetetus (to be short) gives the whole physics. (the whole theology, to be more exact).

So the observable, in particular, are given by the material hypostases: the S4Grz1, Z1* and X1* logics.

Anything not predictable by such theories must be out of the domain of physics per se, and probably be geographical contingencies.

The math are not well known by those supposed to have interest in the subject, that's all.
The physics is already given.

I wrote a theorem prover for Z1*, it answers NIL when given a "physical tautologies", and it gives a finite Kripke models, when he find a counter-examples, and this can be seen as a description of experimental setting which can be tested. Up to now, we get NIL for the empirical quantum setting. Unfortunately they cannot be too much complex because even a relation as simple as the simplest Bell inequality becomes untractable for my theorem prover. We need to optimize G and G*, or top find simpler direct algorithm for the Z and X logics. Ad we need to study the Z and X logic in the first order real, for which there are no theorem provers, and evidence that there will never be.

Normally, the Z logics should give a logic already searched by von Neumann, but not yet found by physicists, which should give the exact arithmetical ortholattice on which only one probability measure can be shown to exist and be unique, in a manner similar to Gleason.

Then this approach explains both the quanta and the qualia, and their relations.

I will take a look on the paper below, but I suspect that they assume the multiverse, or the quantum, which is what I show cannot work, neither for the quanta, nor for the qualia, once we assume comp.

Bruno




Here's a problem, essentially the measure problem in the multiverse, that COMP might have something to say about:

Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
Andreas Albrecht and Daniel Phillips
University of California at Davis; Department of Physics
One Shields Avenue; Davis, CA 95616
We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of probabilities originate in quan- tum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of probability. We com- ment on the general implications of this view, and specifically question the application of classical probability theory to cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum answer.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953v1.pdf

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to