On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/19/2016 7:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is
talking about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a
question of reductionism and explaination. "Is physics the most
fundamental science, or can it be explained and derived from
something at a lower layer?"
<mime-attachment.png>
<mime-attachment.png>
That's fine, and Bruno has a theory about what explains physics,
i.e. the UD and all possible computations. The trouble is it
"explains" both too much and too little. It explains too much
because, according to Bruno (I don't understand his argument) it
explains QM, i.e. that the world is defined by a some theory that
includes linear superposition of states.
Obeying quantum logic, yes. And intutively, it gives the "many world",
but without any ontological extravagances, as they are just
arithmetical objects (via terms or pseudo-terms).
But this would include many worlds besides this one with vastly
different physics.
Come Brent, the total beauty of computationalism is that there is only
one physics (well, actually three, but that is not relevant here: the
physics of hell and heaven are slightly different from the physics on
earth).
Physics is a sum on all worlds. Reality is the sum of all fictions.
Physics is unique and entirely determined by the theology of the
universal machine. The pther worlds are differe,t only on accidental
facts, like opening the door and seeing Moscow, or looking at the spin
state of the electron and seeing it up.
On the other hand it doesn't explain why QM is based on complex
fields instead of real or quaternion or octonion.
The technical evidence are that it will need the octonions, pehaps the
sedenions too. The complex might be enough for the quantum part, but
to get from arithmetical self-reference both the graviton and the
electron, I bet the octonion will be needed. But we are not yet there.
We need to progress on the qX1* and qZ1* logic. It is just a matter of
work. *that* is the point of the work.
We have a quantum logic, and most models of it involves complex
numbers when we assume a three dimension space, but that space is not
yet derived, but if you got the point, all what I say, is that we have
no choice in that matter.
If it actually solved, or even suggested a possible solution, to
such questions it might be seriously considered as "explaining
physics", but it doesn't.
It is the only theory which explain why there are physical laws, and
it includes the qualia/quanta distinction. And it is 100% precise, and
testable, even if that asks for works (which will never been done as
long as it is ignored).
Physicalism just failed on qualia since 1500 years.
Some physicalists (not all!) confuse a fertile methodological
simplification (the identity thesis) with a dogma, apparently.
I give a problem, and the universal machine's solution of the problem.
That machine theory extends Everett on Arithmetic, and I thought 30
years ago, that it would be easy to show that there are too much white
rabbits. Now, to see if there are white rabbits, we need to study the
qX1* and the qZ1* theories. That's all.
In the academy, the rare problem came only from literary philosophers
which dislike when science go on their territory.
History just repeats itself.
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.
