On 29 Apr 2016, at 22:25, John Mikes wrote:
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.
That is wise and I think close to what the (Loebian) universal machine
think. She discarded all 3p theories about her, except part of them
when she is forced to do so, like when paying taxes or running to
evade a predator.
What she can know is that IF she is (even in a weak local sense) a
machine, then the physical as to be reduced eventually into the
phenomenology of the observable-and-repeatable-and-locally sharable.
Fundamentally it is only a statistic on the possible computations/
universal machines which supports us, and whose domain is provided by
the sigma_1 arithmetical truth (the full deployment of the universal
dovetailer).
In such a case, the physical, like the psychological, and the
theological, are mathematically related points of view on arithmetic
seen from inside arithmetic.
Adding anything to arithmetic is adding prejudices and bias, as long
as the view from inside coincide with what we observe, assuming
mechanism or even just Occam.
It is easy, and non controversial, although not well known, that RA is
Turing universal, and that no universal machine capable of surviving
local digital functional substitution, can distinguish being emulated
by RA emulating the Milky way, or by a physically real (what does that
mean?) system emulating RA emulating the Milky way.
The point is not that this consequence of digital mechanism is true,
but that it is testable, and that what we currently extrapolate from
nature actual observation confirms (does not prove!) this.
Bruno
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' is."
> 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 foundations 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 everything-
[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.
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.
