On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other >>> worlds do, >>> >> >> > ? >> > ! > > >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only >>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds. >>> >> >> > Indeed, >> > > Then why the "?" ? > > > Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term > "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK. > > > > > > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who? >> > > Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's > Wave; > > > OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too. > > > > none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no > philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists > want to do, figure out how the world works. > > > I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and > which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical > axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one > physical universe, and that we are unique. > The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy and information in the universe. Richard > > Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do > philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of > explanation. > > > > > > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different >> theories are equivalent, >> > > Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both > tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the > vocabulary of mathematics to do so, just as 2 books about World War 2 tell > the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English > language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how > good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we > should take seriously and think through the implications of what > mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language. > > > Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself. You > can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality. You > can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural numbers, > and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts, for > example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum of > four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the > product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra, > the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and > language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which > is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some > input independently of the language used to describe those machines and > input. > > > > > > > but that does not make the thing described into a convention or >> language. >> > > True. A electron is not a convention or a language, but what about a > description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language > of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's > Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's > Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better. And > some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the > are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is > to say they are logically self consistent. So maybe you can not only write > true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you > can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of > mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are > mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe. > > > Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage right > for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike, and it asks > some familiarity with the subject to develop an intuition of what might be > conventional and what might be a deep truth independent of the subject. > > > > > > > On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language. >> > > But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something > real beyond the mathematics. > > > I was meaning "it points on something real and mathematical beyond the > language. > > > > > I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a > language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike > philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know. > > > The choice of a theory might be conventional, but some truth will not > depend on that choice. And with computationalism, I explain that even > physics is "theory independent". You can use the axiom of arithmetic, or > the axiom on combinators, and the existence of 24, or of electron, will not > depend on it. A bit like most truth in linear algebra don't depend on the > choice of the base. > > It is not a convention that 17 is prime. It really means that you cannot > divide 17 to make some rectangle from it. If math was conventional, there > would not be any conjecture, like the Riemann hypothesis, or the twin prime > conjecture. Then Gödel's theorem justifies that the arithmetical truth is > beyond all possible theoretical formalization of it, and this, imo, gives > grain to realism in math, against conventionalism. > > Bruno > > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
