On 04 Mar 2016, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/4/2016 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Einstein made clear when he use the good lord as a parable and when
it is not. See the book by Jammer. It explains why God was against
atheists (which at that time was what we call non-agnostic atheists
today). Einstein refer to the mystical sight of wonder in front of
the fact that the universe is comprehensible. Today we have
progressed, and we know that if we are machine Einstein's God (a
100% intelligible Aristotelian reality) does not exist, but the
insight of Einstein remains correct for the "new" God (arithmetical
reality), and in that case it is conditionally justify by the
incompleteness theorem. But being refuted is the honor of the
scientist. It also vindicate Gödel's remark to Einstein that
theology is a science.
But this quite circular. Einstein was wrong about the universe
being comprehensible;
What?
it included randomness and Einstein refused to accept that on
aesthetic grounds.
It is his insight, and mine. To invoke randomness is an abandon of
research.
In the case of QM, I think Einstein was and is still right. Once we
stop being dualist in QM and admit that QM applies to both the
particles and the physicists, we get an explanation why things looks
random, but are not.
He believed the universe was deterministic by faith, not evidence.
It has the giant modesty to recognize it needs faith. It is the faith
of the guy who say, no there is no miracle, there lust be an
explanation. Now, Everett gave it to us, and it is a particular case
of the more general and still unavoidable first person indeterminacy.
When Everett proposed QM without collapse many people were
attracted to it just because it was deterministic.
That is a motivation enough, but as I have explained, and is not to
badly explained in the book by Susskind and Friedman (except that you
have to read many pages before getting the quasi-answer) it restores
full locality.
Just to be unique, we have to invent two very weird mysterious things:
events without cause, and spooky action at a distance. It seems
obvious it is conceptually simpler to abandon the axiom "I am unique",
given that the theory explain where that illusion comes from.
So then having found a deterministic model of QM, you want to take
that as evidence that arithmetic (or Turing computation) is
fundamental. It's an assumption supported by an assumption.
Not at all. I start from the mechanist assumption in the cognitive
science, a very common assumption, and I show that it leads to the
fact that the physical "illusion" comes from a 3p statistics on the 1p
experiences supported by the computations (defined in arithmetic or
any universal basis). This leads to quantum logic formally and to a
"many-things" interpretation of the physical when emerging from the
arithmetical in that way, ...
... and indeed nature confirms that, from which I conclude just
nothing, except that it illustrates that the classical machine
theology is empirically testable.
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 https://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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
