On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> 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 
Whatever brand of scientist - physicist, chemist, biologist, even 
psychologist - it seems that they see any theory of whatever is within 
their domain is to be composed of a finite number of sentences (e.g. 
equations, for physicists). 

To have a theory that is composed of an infinite number of sentences is 
sort of outside of their way of thinking.

- 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.
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