On 01 Jan 2018, at 20:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/1/2018 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12/31/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you find an empirical quantum tautology violated by Z1*, or
X1*, or S4Grz1,
There's no such thing as an empirical tautology...that's why I
said it's a mugs game.
A tautology is bthe name logicians gave to any propositional
calculus. A quantum tautology is just a theorem in quantum logic,
most are classical tautologies as well, but the inverse is false:
many classical tautologies are not quantum tautologies. Tautology
means theorem.
You talked around the point, but you ended up back at "empirical
theorem" of which there is none.
What do you mean? Theoretical physics can have theorems, in some
assumed
theory, which can be tested in the empirical reality.
They are theorems of some axiomatic system. The can be tested
against empirical reality precisely because empirical reality is not
a theorem.
OK. We agree on this (unlike "digital physics").
If it were a theorem then it would follow from the axioms and not
test would be needed or relevant.
That does not follow. We need to perpetually test the axioms when they
are supposed to describe an empirical reality.
Mechanism is not
new in that regards. In particular, QM was inferred from empirical
observation (+ math, ...),
It was not inferred in the sense of logic or mathematics. It was
invented or discovered (nobody is sure how Heisenberg did
it...including Heisenberg).
Of course. I was using "infer" in the sense of "inductive inference".
and Quantum logic is inferred/deduced from
QM,
Not really. There is no unique quantum logic that makes QM deductive.
That is an open problem.
That's why there are many forms of QM: matrix mechanics, wave
mechanics, Hilbert space, path-integrals,...
They are all provably equivalent, and leads to same set of quantum
logics. That there is more than one quantum logics reflects only
difference of intepretations of those formalism, and might reflect
already the fact that in arithmetic we get three quantum logics (even
six when enlarging the notion of minimal quantum logics).
They seem to be empirically equivalent where they can be applied,
but there's no mathematical proof they are identical.
Feynman implies Schroedinger and Heisenberg, at least in the classical
setting. I don't know for Dirac ...Witten. It is a very complex
subject. here we face the fact that there is just no theories
explaining both GR and QM.
and it can be compared with the quantum logics that the theology of
machine imposes to the machine. And that has been done, and it fits.
Would Newtonian physics still be the rule, that would be a strong
reason
to make Mechanism non plausible. QM, like Gödel saves Mechanism
and, thus, it questions Materialism.
All theoretical physics "questions materialism" because it reduces
matter to entries in equations.
Yes, but that is not enough when we assumes computationalism. The
equations must be derived from the universal diophantine equation or
similar (like RA, KK-combinator axioms, etc.).
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.
