On 01 Jan 2018, at 23:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/1/2018 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2018, at 00:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/31/2017 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hint: "1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12" can make sense.
Only by redefining summation.
Yes, of course, but not in an arbitrary way: "making sense" means
we have a "reality", or "model", or "interpretation" which makes
sense of that sum. In this case the prime number behavior and its
relation with the Riemann zeta function and its unique analytical
continuation.
Infinite sums are notoriously order dependent. It makes sense
like 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.
No, that is a good pun, but only a pun. When Ramanujan sent his
letter for a post of mathematics in UK, he wrote that he was a very
good computer, as he found that 1+2+3+4+.. .= -1/12. That made it
possible for a serious mathematician to suspect the sender to be a
talented computer, if not a genius. That will not work for 2+2=5,
even with the explanation that you compute this only for the
extremely large values of 2.
I see you come back with your idea that mathematics is concerned
only with fiction, but that is coherent only if you assume
something else to be real, like matter, but then you beg the
question of the mind-body problem again.
No. I do not commit the fallacy of "Your god is false, so my god is
real". I'm willing to say I don't know what must be real.
You just did it. You just said in your previews post: " I think
arithmetic is a human invention...not the basis of reality."
But then, my point is only that mechanism is testable, and it
provides a "new" interpretation of QM, including a rather simple
explanation where the wave itself comes from, but that remains to
be confirmed at infinitum, like any theory in physics.
I do understand that it is counter-intuitive. Doubly so in our
"aristotelian era".
Mechanism is no threat on the physical science. Mechanism is only a
threat to the metaphysics forbidding the physical laws to be
reducible to something non physical.
More than that, I think your theory makes physics necessary.
Yes, indeed.
But it's not clear what physics it requires and whether it is
necessary only to avoid solipism. It seems your theory would
naturally lead to solipism.
It is necessary to stay rational *and* keep computationalism.
Mechanism cannot be solipsist, because it justifies infinitely many
different universal machines, with different computations/indexical-
histories. Now, a form of solipsism could still logically exist, but
comp predicts that it go away if the number cohere enough to get a
first plural notion, as defined in the UDA (that we get the "split" on
collections of machines). This is the quantum solution of avoiding
solipsism. Up to now we do get QM, so no need to think that mechanism
has not the intersubjective agreement.
What happen is that with the computationalist theory of mind, it is
easier to explain the illusion of matter to a relative number:state
in arithmetic, than consciousness to a piece of primary matter (not
yet seen by anybody).
A real lover of primary matter should love the theories S4Grz1, Z1*
and X1*, because they are pointing on experiment capable of
detecting it.
I only love knowledge. It is a mistake to fall in love with theories.
We have only experiences, theories, and personal interpretations.
You are bit easy here. I said that the lover of knowledge should be
very happy with S4Grz1 & Co, because it makes possible to test
Aristotle primary matter idea, and so, like with all scientific
theories, helps in the search of truth and knowledge, of course.
Until today, it did not. But tomorrow? Nobody knows.
Bell (and CHSH, and Aspect, ...) illustrated that EPR was not just
"philosophy/opinion". Similarly, the mathematical theories S4Grz1,
Z1* and X1* illustrate that the mind-body problem is not just
"philosophy/opinion" either.
Bell is (rightly) famous for suggesting an definitive
experiment...not just an illustration.
Here too. In particular the violation of Bell's inequality itself can
be tested in the machine's physics. That is detailed in my long thesis
version.
It leads to complex math, but that is hardly an argument of falsity.
If the results were not ignored, (for pseudo-philosophical reason
intolerable in science), we would have already refuted
computationalism (or that classical indexical weak formulation of it),
or improved it, notably by noting which of S4Grz1, Z1* and X1* are
closer to the physicists' quantum logic. Note that if physics is
entirely explained in S4Grz1, that would be a case for some sort of
solipsism, but not ecaxtly the common one, and also, there are few
chance that can happen (because quantum logic obeys the excluded
middle, and the quantum logic coming from S4Grz1 does not).
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 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.
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 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.
