> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:18, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:16:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:03, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
>> wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <>> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>> So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, alpha.
>>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a value 
>>> because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know and 
>>> what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
>>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
>>> the diagrams should operate.
>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are measured 
>> independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
>> is significant.
>> Right. The relation between fundamental physical constants, alpha = 
>> e^2/hbar*c, is the closest one gets to a "theoretical" value for the FSC. 
>> But that defines it in terms of other measured quantities. (Except that 
>> these days, c is a defined number, not a measured physical parameter.) The 
>> CODATA group use these theoretical relationships between constants, together 
>> with the best available measurements, to make simultaneous fits to all the 
>> constants and the data.That is where independent, "best values" for these 
>> parameters come from. It is using these in the Feynman diagram calculation 
>> of corrections to g-2 that gives the remarkable agreement between theory and 
>> experiment. The point, though, is that the value of the FSC used in 
>> calculating g-2 must be obtained independently of the g-2 measurement or 
>> else it is not a test of QED.. Conversely, of course, the g-2 measurement 
>> can be use to estimate the FSC independently of other measurements.
>> Bruce
>> Brent
>> As the Robert Geroch, James Hartle paper points out
>>     the issue of whether the existence of an algorithm to implement a theory 
>> should be adopted
>>     as a criterion for acceptable physical theories. 
>> if you want measurable constants to be computable, adopt a theory that does 
>> so.
> Some constant might be intrinsically not computable. Normally, the physical 
> laws should at some point take into account the probability of (self) 
> halting, which would introduce a non computable constant in nature, although 
> it would be computable from the halting oracle. Mechanism prevents the 
> physical reality from being entirely computable. I suspect Planck constant to 
> be not computable, because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck 
> constant might very well related to the mechanist substitution level.
> We cannot choose a theory according to our metaphysical state, especially in 
> metaphysics. It has to be corroborated by the facts.
> Bruno
> Just as an example of another theory
> The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
> Gerard ’t Hooft
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548.pdf
> What is computable in that theory?

Everything apparently, which makes it incompatible with mechanism, ironically 

I am not convinced either that super-determinisms makes sense, but this 
requires more thought.

I will take some time to read that book, but a first glance shows that it does 
not distinguish 3p, 1p, 1p-plural, so if mechanism is correct, something is 
necessarily missing. 

If QM is true and Mechanism is true, logicians and physicists should meet at 
the middle of the mind-body bridge, but ’t Hooft might depart a bit from the 
part of Everett which confirms mechanism.

> Not saying this theory is a good one, but a theory is a theory is a theory.

Yes, that follows from x = x. We agree on everything apparently (despite 
working in antipodal conception of reality).


> - pt
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to