Interesting essay. When I was helping edit Vic's books I made a
similar
argument too him - that the reason his Point-of-View-Invariance
seemed so
powerful in rederiving physics is that physicist were only
interested in
things that obeyed POVI.
You wrote:
Let us say we were interested in describing all phenomena in our
universe.
What type of mathematics would we need? How many axioms would be
needed for
mathematical structure to describe all the phenomena? Of course, it
is hard
to predict, but it is even harder not to speculate. One possible
conclusion
would be that if we look at the universe in totality and not
bracket any
subset of phenomena, the mathematics we would need would have no
axioms at
all. That is, the universe in totality is devoid of structure and
needs no
axioms to describe it. Total lawlessness! The mathematics are just
plain
sets without structure. This would finally eliminate all
metaphysics when
dealing with the laws of nature and mathematical structure. It is
only the
way we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure.
I"m sure you're aware of Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe
Hypothesis" in
which all possible mathematical structures obtain in some universe;
and his
later restriction of this idea to the "Computable Universe
Hypothesis" in
which only Turing computable universes exist. But you are
probably not
aware of the ideas of Bruno Marchal, a mathematical logician in
Brussels.
He has a much more worked out idea of reality based on the Universal
Dovetailing computer which he combines with the assumption that
consciousness is certain kind of information processing to conclude
that the
UD computation produces all experience and implies physics. It
seems like a
crankish idea at first, but Bruno is a very nice and serious guy,
not at all
a crank (though I don't agree with all of his theories). Here's
his basic
paper:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
I know him from his posting on the Everything list;
[email protected]
Brent
On 7/10/2017 3:56 PM, Noson Yanofsky wrote:
Thank you!
Vic Stenger’s books are always very interesting!!!
Attached is a paper on finding lawlessness.
And here is a link to another paper that was just published:
http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary
Please pass them on to whoever would be interested in them.
All the best,
Noson
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:48 PM
To: spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Atvoid-2
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lawrence Krauss Should Have Paid Attention to Vic
It's gratifying to see Vic's contribution to the philosophy of
science
recognized. I think it's important to recognize though that
mathematics is
not "effective" in weeding out false physics theories.
Intelligence has
evolutionary advantage insofar as it is good at prediction; which is
implicitly projection of regularities into the future. So humans
have a
built-in tendency to see patterns - even where they are specious.
They can
build mathematical theories which don't have any reference reality,
just as
they can invent superstitions about physical events.
Anyway, thanks to Prof Yanofsky.
Brent
On 7/10/2017 8:14 AM, spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics
Discussion Group
wrote:
In Marcus Chown's delightful book " The Never Ending Days of Being
Dead" a
whole chapter ( Patterns in the Void) is devoted to Vic's ideas "
Where The
Laws Of Physics Comes From" Chown used good judgement including
this chapter
in his book. I think that had Lawrence Krauss been more familiar
with
Vic's work , he possibly wouldn't have walked in the minefield he
did with
his book. "A Universe From Nothing" In my opinion Vic had a very
good
answer to this question. This answer has not received enough
attention in
the physics and philosophy communities. Here mathematician Noson S
Yanofky
fleshes out these ideas in more detail.
Bob Zannelli
Why Mathematics Works So Well
Noson S. Yanofsky
(Submitted on 28 Jun 2015)
A major question in philosophy of science involves the unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics in physics. Why should mathematics,
created or
discovered, with nothing empirical in mind be so perfectly suited to
describe the laws of the physical universe? We review the well-
known fact
that the symmetries of the laws of physics are their defining
properties. We
show that there are similar symmetries of mathematical facts and
that these
symmetries are the defining properties of mathematics. By examining
the
symmetries of physics and mathematics, we show that the
effectiveness is
actually quite reasonable. In essence, we show that the
regularities of
physics are a subset of the regularities of mathematics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08426
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group" 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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid-2/15d2d10eb24-2482-168e1%40webprd-m23.mail.aol.com
.
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
