Brent wrote: A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions" of computationalism have actually been derived. I think most of them are aspirational. For example, what is the proof that spacetime is continuous - in fact what is the proof there is such a thing as spacetime? -------- Actually Einstein wrote: "reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field." (The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Science Library, 1988, p. 160). In a letter to Hans Walter Dällenbach (1916) Einstein also wrote: “But you have correctly grasped the drawback that the continuum brings. If the molecular view of matter is the correct (appropriate) one, i.e., if a part of the universe is to be represented by a finite number of moving points, then the continuum of the present theory contains too great a manifold of possibilities. I also believe that this too great is responsible for the fact that our present means of description miscarry with the quantum theory. The problem seems to me how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a continuum (space-time) as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory as a supplementary construction not justified by the essence of the problem, which corresponds to nothing “real”. But we still lack the mathematical structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this way!”.
See also http://holometer.fnal.gov/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
