> On 21 Dec 2018, at 03:03, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:05 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:45 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:35 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:01 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:18 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:34 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 4:21 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 19 Dec 2018, at 12:59, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Dynamics is the study of matter in motion. There are no clocks in arithmetic. > Of course there is clock. The successor function implements it out of time > and space. > > The fact that you can use one ordered sequence to index another ordered > sequence does not constitute a clock. > > Nothing exists out of time and space, not even time and space themselves. > > Accordingly, you must reject: > Membranes > String theory landscape > Eternal inflation > The inside of black holes (yet another observer-dependent phenomenon) > Other universes with different physics (it's amazing that our universe allows > for life, assuming it's the only universe that exists) > All of these ideas have at least some motivation/support. Why reject them out > of hand? > > This is a very mixed list! Some of these have no evidential support, some are > mere speculation, and other universes with different physics is a long > stretch, not at all in accordance with present knowledge. I do not reject > all these possibilities, but we do need more data on some of them. None of > them exist outside of space-time, however. > > What do you think about the apparent fine-tuning of the universe? e.g. > https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe-ebook/dp/B00CW0H6JY > <https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe-ebook/dp/B00CW0H6JY> > > Isn't this a very strong statistical argument that other universes with > different physical laws must exist? > > No. there is no evidence for that at all. Why should the constants of nature > be a random selection from some distribution? > > > 1. It is a prediction of eternal inflation and string theory. > > String theory and its "landscape" are very speculative, and unlikely to have > any relation to the real world -- there is no evidence that string theory is > even a coherent theory! Eternal inflation, although popular, is only one > possibility for inflation, and even inflationary theory itself is not > well-established science. > > > I agree they are speculative, but they are on the side many many universes. > Meanwhile there is no evidence for "the only universe that exists is the one > I can see". > > 2. There is no known principal that prohibits other systems ruled by > different laws. > > The idea that everything that is not forbidden must exist is a silly > metaphysical notion. > > > That's not the position I was advocating, though I think that notion is less > silly than the idea that we should expect to be in a position to see > everything that exists. > > 3. The digits of the dimensionless constants at significance levels not > important to life appear to be randomly distributed > > Appearances can be deceptive -- vide flat earth. > > > What do you think determines the dimensionless constants? > > 4. It is highly surprising that the dimensionless constants hold the values > they do as if they were even slightly different, the universe would be too > simple for any life to exist > > How do you know that? > > > It is difficult to create systems that develop spontaneous complexity, as any > programmer could tell you. That our universe is such a system is surprising, > given that most systems do not yield spontaneous complexity. > > Look, the Bayesian prior for any argument about the nature of the universe is > that we exist. So there is nothing in the least surprising about the fact > that the universe we observe is compatible with our existence. Anything else > is just idle speculation. > > But that's not the correct prior to use. Your assumption is that one and > only one universe exists. Starting from that assumption you must then ask > what is the probability that life will exist in that one and only one > universe. Given that the probability is low, would suggest the initial > assumption is wrong. Of the 26 dimensionless constants, lets say each one > had a 50/50 chance of leading to catastrophe (no life) if in an invalid > range. Then the probability that all constants would be in the correct range > is (1/2)^26 = 1 in 67 million. We should then be (1 - (1/2)^26) sure that > the universe we can see is not the only one. > > > Why do you believe there is only one inevitable possibility for the laws of > physics? I've never heard any justification for that idea. > > Why do you think I believe that? > > You seemed to reject the idea of other possible physical systems ruled by > different laws, and that the dimensionless constants are not from some random > distribution. > > One idea about the end-point of physics is that there is a TOE that will > explain everything -- predict the values of all constants and so on, maybe > even specify a lot of the boundary conditions. Why do you believe that such a > TOE is not possible? > > I realize that is the dream of many physicists, but science has provided no > justification for the success that initiative, and substantial evidence that > such an initiative is doomed to fail (e.g., all the evidence of landscapes).
I might agree with Bruce on this, probably for a different reason. With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which universal machinery we talk about). Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories. It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed into classical logic, for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty. Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that “observable” view point. The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine (in the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural indeterminacy on all relative computations. That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false (assuming that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, where we are just lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all computations” with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions. If there is a discrepancy, mechanism is refuted, or we are in the normal (gaussian) world, but “captured in some simulation trying to prevent we got the right laws of physics (something rather absurde, and which requires an infinite work on the par of the liar). If Planck constant is derivable from mathematical constant coming from the semantics of the “material hypostases” (the S4Grz1, Z1*, X1* logics), then it is part of the laws. If the Planck constant is shown to be not derivable from them, then it is “geographical”, and some region of the “multi-multi-verse” might have a different one. The quantum seems to be the digital seen from inside. Mechanism saves the quantum and symmetries from being contingent geographies. The laws of physics are laws, indeed, mathematical laws derivable from the mathematics of the universal (Gödel-Löbian) machines. Number theory might suggest shortcut toward physics, and explain why group theory plays a so big role in physics, and why it seems the unitary group imposes itself and how this is related to a measure one on a universal Turing structure. The particles are group invariants, so that light help to get the bosons and the fermions. We can dig from all sides. The advantage of looking “in the head of the universal machine” is that we benefit from the Gödel-Löb-Solovay G/G* separation between proof and truth, and its inheritance in the “material” hypostases, which explains a lot, I think, about the relation between the qualia and the quanta, the sensible privately knowable and the first person plural sharable. Bruno > > Jason > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
