On 06 May 2014, at 23:57, LizR wrote:
On 7 May 2014 06:22, <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
by the way, you wouldn't be the only one to be unclear what a
prediction is supposed to be. No one much understands it these
days. The guy with the major theory on this list, Bruno, thinks his
ToE is falsifiable on the basis as a ToE it has to describe the
forces of nature and everything else, and if that doesn't happen at
some point in the future then his theory is falsified.
You seem to have clearly missed the point Gibbsa. UDA just leaves no
choice (except reifying matter with a magic ability to select a
computation).
UDA explains why we have to translate the mind-body problem into the
problem of deriving physics from arithmetic, and AUDA makes the
translation constructive, indeed we can already test the logic
obeyed by the observable.
Yeah, I decided not to bring in COMP - I had to make an emergency
ruling that months with an 'M' in them also let me indulge my
materialist side (I know, I know, but only in threads with an 'R' in
the title, honest :)
You can't change the rule in such easy way, Liz. That is two easy. You
will end up with a materialist hat in all month, except those with
chinese and hebrew characters.
The thing is, this is a physicalist theory,
That is why I refrain commenting, for not boring people with the
basic. Ross seems to assume a primitive physical universe, so this is
already in conflict with computationalism. It is just a variant of the
Aristotle theology.
so I think we have to treat it as such and temporarily ignore COMP,
or the waters get too murky.
No problem. We can still do physics. How knows? Comp might recover
those tronnies. Except that comp is going in the direction of QM and
relativity (which it generalizes somehow), and Ross seems to say that
his tronnies contradicts both QM and relativity, so even if we
restrict to physics (and not the whole theology) his conception of
matter seems to me a bit naive.
My question to Ross have been already asked. How does his theory
explain the two slits, or the violation of Bell's inequality, or the
functioning of a quantum circuit, or just quantum teleportation.
Again, his main problem is that he uses implicitly the mind-body
identity thesis, which is inconsistent with the idea that we are
machine, or that we are made of particles obeying computable laws. But
comp, QM and relativity might be false, so no problem to suggest some
precise test for the tronnies.
I would advise him not to name his own finding by its own names, as
this looks not serious. He should try to convince people of the
physical community first, also, perhaps, and let them uses his name,
when convinced.
Will Tronnies drop out of physics which in turn drops out of a
measure on computations, as seen from a 1p point of view? Perhaps -
but, not having got to grips with Bruno's explanation about how
physics emerges from the sum of computations (although I can see the
logic of it, in a weak sense of the word), I feel unqualified to
bring that into the discussion. So I have no choice but to stick
with traditional empirical tests.
?
We all have to stick on traditional empirical test. Comp is no
exception, I hope you understood this.
If the tronnies don't replicate Aspect experiment, like QM and comp,
then the tronnies theory is refuted (at least in the local usual sense).
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/d/optout.
