On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > ... > > 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. > > > So what expectation has measure 1.0? Can you show that it includes > conservation of energy-momentum for example? > > > It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed > into classical logic, > > > No. It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted > the logic of physics collapsed. Which would have been bad for your > theory, but would have had no effect on physics. > > 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. > > > But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd > say are trivial. > > > 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” > > > But what does it mean to "sum on all computations"? > > with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions. > > > What is an observation in these computations? > > 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. > > > That's just saying either my theory applies to X, or X is an exception. > > > 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. > > > The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants. But how do Lorentz > transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)? > It's all just burble, Brent. He has no idea how to get any useful results from any of this....... Bruce > -- 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.
