On 3/3/2013 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well if what emerges from comp is not physics, then physics refutes comp.
So that means that you can use physics to say what comp must emerge.
what is proposed is that both comp and physics are co-emergent and
co-defining. Neither is ontologically primitive.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure how a paper that assumes
physics can say anything about how physics might emerge from arithmetic.
On Mar 3, 2013 2:49 PM, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 3/3/2013 10:11 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
That's a nice read but written under the materialist assumption so doesn't
really apply to my question.
Hummm, I can translate it in my mind over to the dual...
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
On 3/3/2013 12:37 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
When Bruno claims that physics can be derived from the UD, would a proof
of that represent, on some level, a (partial) solution to the measure
It would seem so, or more accurately the other-way around. I just
found this paper which has as an abstract:
"I review how discrete structures, embodied in the integers, appear in
the laws of physics, from quantum mechanics to statistical mechanics to
Model. I argue that the integers are emergent. If we are looking to build
laws of physics, discrete mathematics is no better a starting point than
the rules of
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.