On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, 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?
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.
Of course there are other choices: (1) Mechanism is wrong (2) Your
argument is wrong
Brent
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 …
But you don't predict anything like that. You assume that elements
implementing computations could be substituted for parts of the human
brain with noticeable effect. So that's one thing that could be wrong.
It might be that you have to use atoms and molecules. The rest of your
agrument, that cosmic rays could intervene to repair brain damage also
seems doubtful. And your reliance on quantum mechanics may well be
undermined by the quantum theory of gravity. Your theory doesn't
predict anything and it only retrodicts a few aspects of QM.
Brent
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.
For more options, visit 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.
For more options, visit 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.
For more options, visit 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.
For more options, visit 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.
