> On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some of 
> the physicists on here think about this research?
> 
> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical statistical 
> phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying.... it is somehow 
> unsatisfactory.... like being served a quite empty plate with nice garnish 
> for dinner.
> 
> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups with 
> some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, except 
> on vastly different scales of course and due to other different factors, in 
> the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of gravitational 
> inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their grand voyages 
> around the galactic core.
> 
> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
> explain what this foundation itself rests upon.... leading to the "it's 
> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
> 
> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and the 
> seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
> 
> Here is the link to the article:
> 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/
> 
> 
>  
> One can (sort of) write all "physics" in a couple of equations: the Einstein 
> Field Equation (EFE) and the Standard Model Equation (SME):
> 
> EFE: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/EinsteinLeiden4.jpg/620px-EinsteinLeiden4.jpg
> +
> SME: 
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
> 
> What caused this particular arrangement of expressions in these to be the 
> "law" of our universe I suppose can be "explained" by it's being one of any 
> number of possible arrangements.


The tiny (sigma_1) arithmetical reality contains all “combinations” of all 
programs, and your explanation is a bit like digital physics, where the 
physical universe would be one special universal number, say U. That is 
possible, but this can explain the origin of the physical laws, in a coherent 
way with respect to the mind-body problem (the hard problem of consciousness) 
only in presence of an explanation of why that program U is winning, that is 
how such U can “multiply” you so much in the relative way that the laws of 
physics get stabilised. Arithmetical self-reference explains consciousness 
“easily”, but at the price of forcing us to derive the physical laws from any 
universal machinery.
The physical reality is not a mathematical reality among others, it is the 
projective border of the universal mind, which is just the mind of the 
universal machine. It is a complex many-dreams structure, and its quantum 
aspects explain why negative amplitude of probability can play a role in making 
the aberrant histories relatively rare, despite them being also in that sigma_1 
arithmetic.

With mechanism, the idea that there is anything more than the sigma_1 
arithmetical truth is absolutely undecidable. The sigma_1 truth emulates the 
sigma_n believers for all n, and beyond. If the physics which is in the head of 
the universal numbers departs too much from what we see, it will be time to 
suspect that there is indeed something more. But not only there are no evidence 
for that, but there are strong evidence for the completeness of the sigma_1 
truth with respect to the metaphysical questions.

Bruno 






> 
> 
> - 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