On 23 Feb 2014, at 01:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the
credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call
Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself,
today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept over the
last, few, years, is mathematician, Brian Whitworth in New Zealand,
and if anyone has the time, interest, and patience, to learn about
his own theory of Virtual Reality (again, Virtuality) I will
present it here. I believe it dovetails with the Block
universe view of how spacetime works and is best measured. But it
does take both special, and general, relativity as well as the
quantum, in a very, different, direction. Here is his latest paper,
dated, Jan 24, 2014. His earlier papers can be downloaded on ARXIV,
of course, as well as his discussions on the FQXI.
Sincerely,
Mitch
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf
Well right off I see he got the quotation wrong. It's J.B.S.
Haldane's, "It is my supposition that the universe is not only
queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."
He complains for two pages that modern physics can't be right
because it's not comprehensible. But he never explains what
"comprehensible" means or why it disqualifies theories. I think
what it really means is "like good old Newtonian mechanics". But
when explicated it no longer sounds like such a good criterion. He
writes "What quantum theory describes is in every way physically
impossible" - but only under naive Aristotelian and Newtonian physics.
He claims the virtualism "is consistent with physics" - but which
physics? The physics he objects is impossible and
incomprehensible? As a matter of fact yes. That's the physics he
cites in describing what virtualism "Has" or "Allows". Notice he
doesn't use "predicts"; and that's because virtualism is like
theism, it "has" and "allows" anything at all.
After eight pages of logical non-sequiturs, I lost patience.
Me too. He is quite naive on computation, and on the notion of
reality. He got also some references wrong but that is traditional. He
makes also the "digital physics" error, and of course he uses an
identity mind/brain which makes no sense in a digital context, as I
have often argued here.
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.
