> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:20, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <mailto:[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…….
This means that you have not study any of my papers. You remark is as much gratuitous than ad hominem. Bruno > > 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] > <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.
