> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, 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?
You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon. Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is simply wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there is no other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course. > >> >> 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. If the theory incorrectly predict something, it has to be abandoned. Your way of phrasing things seems strange to me. The notion of incorrect prediction is fuzzy. If mechanism incorrectly predict that an electron weight is one kilogram, then, we correct the prediction, and if we find it is 2 kilos, we still abandon the theory (unless get some further explanation, like the presence of hyper bosons with negative masses happing to keep up the appearances … I have no theory. Digital Mechanism is already implicit in Darwin theory of evolution, and molecular biology has confirmed the (relative) digital aspect of it. All hamiltonian use in physics are computable, and QM preserves computability, so non mechanism is speculating on appeal to magical thinking, without evidences. > >> 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. Not at all, that gives a quantum logic for the yes-no experiences, and if it is the right type, you will get a Gleason theorem (as it should be with Mechanism), and derives the other probabilities from this. Anyway, no other theories works today, I think. Physics works, because it makes a listing assumption which is just non sensical with digital mechanism. You need infinite amount of energy/information to localise a soul in a body when you assume mechanism. > >> >> 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”? UDA gives the intuitive meaning, with the UD pictures for the true sigma_1 sentences. AUDA gives the mathematics of the measure one, and how to proceed from that, if you are interested in metaphysics (nothing to do with physics a priori: to use metaphysics for doing physics, is like is like using the LARC to taste a pizza). > >> with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions. > > What is an observation in these computations? It receive an input, like seeing Washington, instead of Moscow, or reading 4 instead of 5. It is a local measurement, usually kept in some memory for further comparisons. > >> 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. It is saying either Mechanism is true and this observable feature is not an invariant, or Mechanism is false. > >> >> 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?)? This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that physics is already in a large part derivable from simple invariance principles. But Mechanism is at weight years away from explaining space. Number theorist will get it before the theologians! Normally, space comes from a knotty structure, a projection algebra, or a Temperley Lieb Algebra related to the fact that the Z and X logic are graded on their extensions, and obeys relation involving []^n<>^n+1[]^n and <>^n[]^n+1<>^n. But the math is hard. (That was expected of course, the whole subject is difficult, and all error in philosophies and theologies can be sees as a confusion between two self-referential modes. Here G/G* clarifies a lot. Bruno > > Brent > >> >> 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] >> <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] > <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.
