Bruno: do you have a good definition you could use for "physical"? (I mean: beyond what science calls physics in physical sciences). * In my agnostic mind whatever might be included into - even - some thinking of potentially imaginable domains/factors/items/complexifiers etc. - "IS" - existing in the Entirety of which we have had access only in a tiny-tiny little fraction so far. Even that: adjusted to our (simple?) capabilities of the 'contemporary'' human mind. (The perfect agnosticism). I feel free to 'think' beyond whatever we can think of today. Of course, without substance. I.O.W.: to allow more to 'exist' than our knowables.
JOhn Mikes On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2016, at 00:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > >> "is" in which sense? >> > > "sense" in which sense? > > You must be a fan of Bill Clinton who notoriously said in answer to a > question in a legal deposition: > > "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' i > s." > > > >> > >> Some multi or multimulti verses could be everything physical that there >> is, but not everything needs to be physical >> > > But physicists deal in the physical that why they're bored to tears when > people start talking about what things would look like from places that are > impossible to exist even in theory. > > >> > >> exemple: the natural numbers, the complex numbers, >> > > First of all we don't even know for certain that the Real Numbers exist > much less the > > Complex Numbers, and even it they do they don't have a location. but a > viewpoint does, it's a > position of observation > ; and if that location is not inside the multiverse it does not exist. > > >> > >> but logically, it is conceivable to have structure containing themselves, >> > > Fine, but it is not logical to have something that is not part of itself > be part of itself; like a place that is not part of the multiverse you can > stand on to look at it from the outside. The multiverse has no outside. > > > That is why Nagel called it the point of view of nowhere, and sometimes I > call something slightly similar the 0th person point of view. What you say > does not refute what I said, given that here, the 0th point of view is > given by the mathematics of the Everett Universal Wave. It just means that > we look at the wave function of the universe assuming QM without collapse. > And I have not use this, only any superposition coming from Alice and Bob > entangling themselves with a singlet state (sometehing you have eliminate > from the successive quotes, so we were leading astray from the topic). > > Bruno > > > > >> >>> If the works of >>> >>> Galilee, Einstein >>> >>> or >>> >>> Maxwell >>> >>> were built on unphysical foundation >>> s >>> then today nobody would remember their names, instead they are among the >>> most >>> famous >>> physicists of all time. In fact Einstein came up with relativity by >>> trying to imagine what the viewpoint would be of somebody moving at the >>> speed of light and >>> >>> discovered that viewpoint would produce logical contradictions >>> , >>> and therefore CAN NOT EXIST. >> >> >> > >> No, he put itself at the place of a photon which does move at the speed >> of light, and concluded to the laws of relativity and to the fact that the >> photon can't have a mass non null. I think. >> > > Einstein figured that if the fundamental laws of physics were worth > anything then they must be true for any frame of reference, but from the > frame of reference of somebody moving at 186,000 miles a second all > electromagnetic waves would have a undulating shape that changes in space > but not in time and light would have zero velocity. But that would be > contrary to Maxwell's equations, therefore Einstein concluded that the > viewpoint of a observer moving at 186,000 miles a second CAN NOT EXIST. And > after that realization the rest of special relativity fell into place. > > > >> Many works of many physicists are built in part (at least) on unphysical >> foundation: mathematics. >> > > I can't think of one. It's true that before Einstein proved them wrong > people though non-Euclidean geometry was unphysical, but a place to stand > outside the multiverse will always be unphysical because if it was physical > it would be inside the multiverse. > > 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 [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. > -- 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.
