On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2014, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote: > > On 1/24/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> In your aristotelian theology. But when working on the mind-body >>> problem, it is better to abandon all prejudices on this. Indeed with comp, >>> it is the concrete laptop which appears as an (unconscious preprogrammed) >>> idealization. >>> >> >> Of course I'd say reifying arithmetic is a prejudice. >> > > No need in reifying it. You need just to believe in their truth. > > > >> For some people, like Hardy, the number 8 is more concrete that the >>> planets you can count. Our brain makes us believe the contrary, but he uses >>> a complex universal machine to fail us on this. >>> >> >> Yes I appreciate this viewpoint. Actually I'm pretty agnostic about >> what's really real. At any given time it's the ontology of our best >> theory; where "best" is not sharply defined but is measured by some mixture >> of predictive power, consilience, scope, definiteness, and accuracy. >> > > OK. > > > Comp is great on scope and maybe on definiteness, but it seems very weak >> on the other measures. >> > > I am not sure. If comp is correct, and if there is no flaw in UDA, comp > predicts the existence of physical laws. I don't know of any other theory > doing that. And it is constructive, we get already the quantum logic, and > they have to define the whole measure, by the UDA. > Bruno, In string theory the physical laws and constants depend on how the hyper-EM flux winds thru the (500 or so) topo holes in the Calabi-Yau compact manifolds (ie., particles of 6d space). That may constitute a prediction of the laws and constants except that the relationship between the laws and particular windings in not known (but the same may be true of comp). Richard > It is fuzzy on the precise frontier between geography and physics, but it > explains at least the difference, which is not even existing in physics, > except by a vague inference. Comp explains the maning of "aw" in "physical > laws". > > > > That's why I keep hoping you'll be able to come up with some surprising >> testable prediction. >> > > It is really a question of making people understanding the S4Grz, X and Z > logics. The math is there. Just technical difficulties, to sum up. It is > for the next generation. > > > > This is just standard science. It's not some Aristotelean prejudice. >> It's the same thing we ask of string theory and loop-quantum-gravity. >> >> You mention that you think octonion Hilbert space will be found to be >> more fundamental than complex Hilbert space. Of course many people have >> speculated that quaternions or octonions will be more fundamental, but >> nothing definite has been predicted. So if comp showed that the octonions >> were necessary that would be quite convincing. >> > > Unfortunately my intuition does not come from comp, here. I would have > like that too, but now, that would be wishful thinking. > But you should understand that we have no choice. If comp is correct, and > if we don't put consciousness under the rug, the *whole* of physics is a > theorem in arithmetic, concerning what any universal machine can predict > from any of its states (even in simulation). Comp gives new strong > invariants for physics: the choice of phi_i, and the choice of the observer > in the phi_i. > That's the main point: an explanation that no theory of consciousness can > avoid a derivation of the physical reality appearances from arithmetic or > equivalent. > It seems from the little I know that comp at most predicts 8 different variations of laws and constants whereas string theory predicts at different variation for every unique winding, which may be as many as 10^1000 different variations. Perhaps that is testable. Richard > > Bruno > > > > 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. > -- 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.
