On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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). > > > OK. What is an hyper-EM? (Hyper means ?) > That is my way of referring to the electric flux that winds thru the 6d-particles of space: 1. Flux - The fluxes in M Theory is similar to the electric fluxes but have nothing to do with electrons or photons. The presence of fluxes has the effect of holding the manifold's shape in place. The electric fluxes from an enclosed surface is equal to the number of charges within, similarly the fluxes in M Theory also comes with whole numbers of a certain unit (through each hole in the manifold). It drastically increases the complexity of the landscape. Especially when they act on the pointy end of the compactified manifold stretching it into a long, narrow neck. The result is to produce lot of valleys on the landscape with negative vacuum energy (cosmological constant), which is contrary to observation in the real world. Now the brane comes to the rescue. 2. Brane - Similar to the antiparticle in the point approximation, every brane also has its antibrane. Anitbrane has a tendency of attracting to the pointy end and add energy into the valley to make the vacuum energy positive. Thus, by a mix of a little of everything, a point on the landscape turns out to have a small positive cosmological constant - just like the observation in the real world. It is also found that D-brane can stabilize the size as well as the shape of the compactified manifold (like the steel-belt in radial tire) at least in the Type IIB theory. This function is crucial in the superstring theory, otherwise the 6 hidden dimensions would become unwinded and getting infinitely large. Then we would be living in ten dimensional space instead of the usual three http://universe-review.ca/R15-26-CalabiYau02.htm#moduli > > 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). > > > Interesting. > String theory is a physical theory which makes me envisage that number > theory might be the measure winner. There are many formal similarities > suggesting this, but I can't really judge, and only the theological > approach (with G*) preserves the first person/thrid person relation in a > way enlightnening for an explanation of the quanta/qualia relation. > > Bruno > > > 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 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. >> > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
