On 28 May 2016, at 19:34, John Mikes wrote:
YOUR argumentation includes:
"...is the only theory we know of ..."
- well, this is THE insufficient argument.
With a moderate agnosticism (my kind?) we accept our ignorance of
the total with very little exception. A 'we know' is a tiny
fraction and even that in a way adjusted to the present capabilities
of our mental functioning.
The 'Entirety' allows counter-arguments and counter-evidences, -
maybe - invalidating our present views.
OK. To be sure, this is what John Clark said, not Pierz.
Now, I disagree with Clark, see below.
But I am still not sure of your reply here, John Mikes. If we have
only one theory, that is a reason to study it and apply it, if only to
inavildate it one day, and build a better theory. We cannot ask to a
theory to be true, we can only hope it to be refuted. That's how we
learn. It is bad philosophy to ascribe truth pretension to scientist.
I comment the comments below:
John Mikes
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:58:11 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:\
> Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea
depended on the notion of black holes spawning new universes, with
each BH tweaking the laws of physics slightly in the new universe.
But black hole theory has progressed a lot since then and I don't
think anything in the modern theories allows for them to spawn new
universes.
Richard Dawkins said "The theory of evolution by cumulative
natural selection is the only theory we know of that is, in
principle, capable of explaining the existence of organized
complexity."
This is just ridiculous. Elementary arithmetic leads to all possible
levels of complexity, from computable linear and polynomial to the
degrees of unsolvability (sigma_i, pi_i, delta_i, i = 0, 1, ...).
Some percolation process, some universal cellular automata, or simply
the Mandelbrot set, illustrate also how complexity can arise from very
simple iteration of very simple number (natural, or not) number
relations.
That's certainly true for biology, for it to be true for physics too
you need reproduction and mutation. Some say the singularity at the
center of a Black Hole is infinitely small and spacetime is
infinitely curved and space and time comes to an end at that point.
But Smolin says the singularity is very small but not
infinitely small and spacetime is highly curved but not infinitely
curved there and space and time will not end but bounce off the
singularity producing a new universe. And because of quantum
uncertainty a dozen or so physical constants in the offspring
universe will be slightly different from its parent.
As for recent developments ruling it out....for Smolin's theory
to work at least some information would be needed to
be transferred from the parent universe to the baby
universe through a black hole, and that may not be possible but
there is no scientific consensus on that yet.
I am agnostic on this, and even agnostic if such type of explanation
will, or not, be ruled out by computationalism. Whatever physical
reality there is, it emerges phenomenologically from a relative
statistics on alternate computations (indexically defined).
Computation is used in the original sense of E. Post, A. Church,
Kleene, Turing, ... and so I use the theorem that already Robinson
Arithmetic *is* a Turing complete universal system, and if you agree
that 2+2=4, then the proposition that a computation exists, and that
at this number-time x of the computation, the register denoted by
gödel number y is empty, for an implementation by universal number
u567, are true by consequence.
Brains do not create consciousness. It filtrates the consciousness of
the universal machine by differentiating and stabilizing it on normal
histories, if they exist. That we get a reasonable quantization by
Gödel applied on the computable arithmetical propositions strongly
suggest that a sort of Gleason theorem will apply on arithmetic and
that such measure exists.
The problem of the fundamental physicist, is that they have the
observable, but they still dismiss the importance of having a clean
and precise theory of observer. They seem to miss that if the observer
is Turing emulable, the physical reality is a measure on classical
computations (which exists in the sense that even, odd and prime
numbers exist). Everett explosion of realities or consciousness
differentiation triggers an deeper and bigger arithmetical explosion.
yet, incompleteness justifies the possibility of local shatrable
renormalizations.
Bruno
John K Clark
I enjoyed Smolin's book when I read it years ago, but conceptually
as an explanation for complexity I'm not so sure. I like the
evolutionary cosmology, because I agree with Smolin that purely
anthropic explanations for fine-tuning are unsatisfying, but
Smolin's idea itself rests on a remarkable "coincidence": the fact
that tuning for black holes also happens to be good for the
evolution of life. It would be a great theory if the problem were
explaining the surprising number of black holes, but it isn't. It's
explaining fine-tuning for life. With Smolin's theory we're still
left wondering why the universe isn't just a giant swiss cheese of
black holes getting better and better at reproducing themselves with
no trace of life anywhere. For his theory really to work, the life
itself would need to contribute to the generation of black holes,
otherwise the development of life looks like a "third wheel".
--
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.
