On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <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 [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.
