On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unit
conversion factor between the + and - signature terms. It's value
is arbitrary, like "how many feet in a mile", which is why it is
now an exact number in SI units.
Oh yes, I seem to remember that physicists like to set c (and h?)
to 1.
So does comp predict that any TOE will have a unique solution -
namely the one we experience?
Only from what we have just experienced before. Comp does not
predict the existence of the moon, but should predict the physical
laws, that is, what is invariant for all observers/machines.
So is this an alternative to the WAP - we experience a universe
compatible with our existence because such a universe has to drop
out of the interations of conscious beings in Platonia?
As I said, comp uses only a conditional probability, not a bayesian
relation, which can still be used for geography and history. But
the physical laws are defined by the general measure on the
computation, which must exist with comp, and is given by the
material points of view (Bp & Dt, mainly).
But can you prove within comp that there must be physical laws,
Yes. If not (that is if the physical laws were only the calssical
boolean tuatologies), the material hypostases would have collapse into
propositional calculus. So we are assured that some physics exists for
any universal machines, and is the same for all of them.
can you prove that solipism is false,
Not yet, although Z1* suggests it to be false, as it should give the
first person plural. Everett of course suggests that it exists
empirically, and so comp should confirms that. The quantum nature of
the Bp & Dt on the sigma_1 sentences shows that comp might indeed
refute solipsism (statistically).
that it's not ALL geography and we have nothing to thank for our
existence but WAP?
Only arithmetic.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
