On 10/26/2013 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
...
It is:
3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical computations.
Not at all. That would be the case if the goal was doing physics, but the goal was only
to formulate the mind body problem.
Then, despite this, the math part (AUDA, the machine's interview) does provide the
mathematical tools to do practical computations. The arithmetical quantization is fully
given and has been compared with quantum logic.
That we are at light years from getting anything like the standard model is not really
relevant, as the standard model does not address the mind-body problem.
A physicist can complain that comp is a long way to be able to use as physics, but I
insist: the goal is to show that the mind-body problem is not solved, and that with
comp, we have to derive physics from arithmetic, and I got already the propositional
part of physics.
What do you mean by that last? Whether you think it is necessary or not, it would
certainly lend credence to your theory if it made more contact with physics. Here's a
blog post that might suggest a point of contact:
http://blog.sigfpe.com/2013/10/distributed-computing-with-alien.html
Brent
The subject is the mind-body problem, not physics per se.
Technically, the problem is that physicists don't know mathematical logic (as Penrose
illustrated to the logicians). Very few physicists understand the X1* and Z1* logic,
which gives the needed arithmetical quantizations.
That's another problem: only logicians knows logic. They have no problem with AUDA. But
many just dislike the mind-body problem and applications of logic. My work reminds that
logic per se does not solve philosophical problem, which annoy them as they are still
under the spell of Vienna positivism, where logic is used to replace metaphysics, and
comp shows that this is not enough.
I think.
Bruno
Suppose that you could derive the Standard Model from deeper principles, then it
doesn't matter what the philosophical objections against these principles are.
No one cares that Einstein's arguments leading to Special Relativity were not rigorous.
Obviously, you can't derive special relativity rigorously from electrodynamics, because
relativity is more fundamental than electrodynamics. At best you can present heuristic
arguments. Some philosophers do make a problem out of that, but in physics no one
really cares. Most modern textbooks do this correctly by discussing Lorentz invariance
and only then deriving the Maxwell equations as the correct generalization of Coulomb's
law.
Saibal
--
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
