On 10 Feb 2013, at 07:46, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
You should always be clear if you talk about the physical universe
(that we can observe), and the real universe, that we are searching.
If you assume that the Universe = the physical universe, we already
adopt a strong axiom of Aristotelian theology, and it happens to be
incompatible with another widespread assumption, which is that we are
Turing emulable (like the laws of physics used in the brain in all
appearance).
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
pursuit in life. '
What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years....
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
If computationalism is true, and if Planck is true, then a) b) ... d)
must be derived from elementary arithmetic.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
if comp is true, they are not fundamental. They have to be derived
from computer science (and thus from arithmetic, by Church's thesis).
And some are already partially derived, notably a).
The universe is in the head of all universal numbers. So to speak.
This makes comp testable.
Bruno
=.
socratus
--
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.
