On 02 Dec 2016, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Telmo,
On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hello,
What do you guys think of this?
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
Interesting, seems plausible to me, not so original (cf the
explanation of
space-time from quantum entanglement) and of course all this is in
line with
the idea that space-time-energy is also emerging. I still hope he
recovers
phenomenologically general relativity in the large scale. If Verlinde
explain the dynamics and shape of the galaxies without Dark Matter,
that
would be quite remarkable.
What he means by "illusion" is "not primitive", or "not primary".
In this
list, we already know (I hope) that if mechanism is correct in
cognitive
science, the whole of physics is no more fundamental and must be
derived
from arithmetical self-reference, as it does till now.
I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
Einstein
ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
I have the impression his claim is that general relativity is not a
correct description of gravity (thus dark matter), so his theory would
be to general relativity what general relativity is to Newtonian
physics.
To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
That is true for sure! I don't like it either, it's just looks as
clickbait.
Also reinforces the popular misunderstanding of science.
Right. Not just the popular one. It makes the whole of science into a
pseudo-religion, but that is the natural consequence of not doing
metaphysics or theology with the scientific attitude.
The serious
scientific stance is that all theories are probably incomplete...
OK. But with second order logic, we can define categorical realm. the
statement that "there is only numbers" can be made mathematically
precise, and numbers could be (and has to be, assuming mechanism) a
complete realm. But your statement is right, as there is no complete
first order theory of the numbers. Here we have to distinguish the
theory, the model of the theory, and a notion of ontological realm.
The fact that physics use the word "model" for "theory" does not help
in that context.
But
the mainstream doesn't even grasp what a theory is, thus the silly
"evolution is just a theory" type of arguments.
Yes.
To me,
Einstein is still vindicated on both the macro and the micro, and I
take his
1927 remarks, and its EPR paper as indications that he got a better
understanding on QM than his contemporaries.
When it comes to theoretical physics I am just an enthusiastic outside
observer. Looking at it from the "outside", I can't help but feel that
"dark matter" is an euphemism for "the current theory has been
falsified by observation, but we have nothing better for now".
I am rather agnostic about this. I think "dark matter" is the simplest
explanation with the current data, but I am agnostic. I guess I have
some hope that superstring theory will explain it.
In the same issue, the article "Scientists Find Religion Triggers
Same Area
of Brain as Sex, Drugs and Love" is funny, but a bit trivial, as
the brain
zone excited are the one related to pleasure. Also, they looked
only to
Mormons' experiences, well ... It is nice that they make such study
though,
but here too, they still keep in outdated theory of mind (I guess
this will
last for sometime).
Right, neural correlates are useful and interesting, but people read
WAY too much into them...
I'm glad you agree. It presupposes usually both mechanism and weak
materialism, and give a "modern" way to put consciousness and the soul
under the rug.
The real bomb is the discovery of the universal machine: it is more
fundamental that the physical universe, and we don't have to assume
them.
Arithmetic explains entirely by itself the existence, in arithmetic,
of coherent sheaf of dreams (that is: computations with a notion of
first person view of the computation). That is testable, and explains
already the quantum nature of physical events, which is something
assumed/inferred in physics. As I said, this makes the confusion
singled out by René Thom between describing/predicting and explaining
where things come from.
Computationalism extends nicely (canonically) both Darwin and Everett,
assuming only the natural numbers. And arithmetic (or anything Turing
equivalent) explains its own non-explainability. Physics lacks the
conceptual tool for doing this, and by searching one model, is forced
to accept a brain-mind identity which does not make sense, neither
with quantum mechanics nor with mechanism in cognitive science.
When you see the difficulty to explain the lies on drugs, which exist
since only 70 years, and where the facts are easily available, you can
guess it will take some time before people realize the lies in
theology/metaphysics/philosophy, which are institutionalized since
1500 years. In my university in Brussels, they have just suppressed
the course of logic at the faculty of science. Yet, we will not end
the Middle age, and transform the Enlightenment Period without logic
and without a coming back to the scientific attitude in theology,
which is per definition the fundamental science, even if physicalism
is true and mechanism wrong.
Best,
Bruno
Cheers,
Telmo.
Best,
Bruno
Cheers
Telmo.
--
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 everything-
[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.
