> On 24 Dec 2018, at 20:58, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12/24/2018 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 24 Dec 2018, at 07:44, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php >>>>> <https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php> >>>>> >>>>> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in >>>>> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum >>>>> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. >>>>> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop >>>>> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as >>>>> small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where >>>>> the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the >>>>> fabric of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided >>>>> beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the >>>>> case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh >>>>> said. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which >>>>> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we >>>>> can detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical >>>>> equations that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the >>>>> founding fathers of loop quantum gravity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 >>>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2> which showed spacetime to be smooth >>>> down to 1/525 of the Planck length? >>>> >>>> Brent, >>>> >>>> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory? In another >>>> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's >>>> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete), >>>> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then >>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2> >>>> would be a confirmation of that. >>> >>> First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space. >> >> By the semantics available for S4Grz1, and the X1* logics. > > How does that define open sets?
Because S4Grz interprets (in a technical precise sense) Intuitionist logic, and add some structure to the topological interpretation of the truth value, common in intuitionistic semantic. The OR is union of open sets, the AND is the intersection, the negation is the larger open set disjoint from a set. It is easy to show that this gives an algebraical model for intuitionist logic, and to build a counter-example for the excluded middle (using the topology of the real line, or any other topological space, but grr endows them with richer structures. Same for the quantum logic. In that sense, mechanism does predict new things in physics, and should be tested. > >> But intuitively, you can see them arising from the fact that the first >> person indeterminacy has a continuum range, as the DU multiplies all >> histories on all oracles (real numbers) in the limit of all computations, >> which cannot be avoided from the first person views associated to the >> machine. > > But you haven't even defined a first persons' "views", appearance from a > given place. Yes I do! That is what the “<>t” in the variant of G given by “[]p & <>t” is all about. The place is the reality I bet. Universal machine get that sensation because they can’t avoid their incompleteness which brings that nuance. It is an “instinctive” bet on some (indexical) large notion of reality. > You need metric space and physiscs for that. Only for the physical reality, not a reality. > >> >> >> >> >>> Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction peculiar >>> to Bruno. >> >> Like the very existence of a physical observable universe, this is explained >> by Mechanism. Aristotle took this for granted, and Newton assumed the >> continuum at the start, which is not an explanation, even if that was a very >> clever move to get the correct local prediction. Note that Newton was aware >> that his theory was on shaky metaphysical base, though. >> >> Now, Mechanism predicts only that some observable are continuous. To derive >> that time or position are such observable would need to get a notion of >> space, which in the mechanist approach is the most difficult things to get. >> We will get first the mathematics of knots, and derive space from there, >> perhaps. > > Which I take as an admission that you have not done so. Study the things. It could take centuries, especially at the speed right now. But physicalism is refuted, and mechanism does not leave any choice. Yes theology is a complex science when done seriously. Is that astonishing? As you can see with some members of this list, people are even emotional just in front of the idea that there is any problem there, but with mechanism, there is a precise mathematical problem, which generalises not that much the problem confronting the physicists with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Mechanism explains that at some level of description, things get blurred and it looks like many computations are done at once. Took me 30 years to shows it is indeed a sort of quantum logic, and if you have any idea how to proceed further, you are welcome. There’re jobs there for the rest of eternity. Bruno > > Brent > >> String theory suggest that space could be a continuum, unlike Quantum Loop >> Gravity, and mathematically, string theory seems to be favoured by >> Mechanism, but that remains quite beyond … the mathematical logical tools >> available today ... >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> 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.
