On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:01:26 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Feb 2019, at 16:12, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > 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]> 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). > > > Yes, like a brain use a finite number of molecules, and mechanism > eventually only assumes the finite number 0, s(0), s(s(0)), …, which > actually will be used to code the finite things we are interested in. > > But the meaning of those things are formalised by infinite structure, like > the model (N, +, x), or like hide that a computable function associate any > number to a number. The understanding of “red” should make you able to > recognise *all* red things. With mechanism, such meaning are captured by > nameable, and non nameable, number relations. > > All theories assumes such potential, phenomenological, infinities. The > concept of understanding is itself infinite, and more or less well captured > by the comprehension axiom in set theories, or the abstraction Operation in > Lambda calculus. Compute science is concerned by the behaviour of finite > entities confronted to finite or infinite entities. > > > > > > > To have a theory that is composed of an infinite number of sentences is > sort of outside of their way of thinking. > > > All theories contains an infinite set of sentences. Classical > propositional logic contains as theorem “p -> p”, > “p -> (p -> p)”, “p -> (p -> (p -> p)), etc. Elementary arithmetic > contains infinite propositions: 1+1= 2, 2+2=4, 4+4=8, 8+8=16, etc. That is > why we use variables to say generalities, like Ax(x=x), that is, for all x > it is the case that x = x. Or we use scheme of axioms. > No need to put any ontology on this, with mechanism we need only 0, s(0), > … > Mechanism explains, using only the laws of addition and multiplication > (and succession) how finite numbers get able to hallucinate other numbers, > and why some sheaves of hallucination can become persistent and associated > to deep and complex lawful histories. > > I might disagree with you, everyone’s theory is infinite, but what you are > perhaps saying is that at any moment of time, we consult only finite part > of those theories, to figure out some reality we bet on. But that is not > unlike the Turing machine, which consulte only finite portion of its tape, > and asks only a finite number of query to some Oracle. > > F=ma assumes already many infinite theories. Infinite theories are far > simpler to use than finite theories, due especially to the abundance of > very similar types of things, like photons, electro, water molecules, but > also numbers, functions, relations, space, etc. > > Digital Mechanism is a finitisme, not an ultrafinitism, to be clear. It > also an indexical, it concerns your willingness to say yes to a digitalist > doctor, or yes to a digital teleportation experience. I just show that in > that case the mind-body problem reduce to a body illusion problem in > arithmetic. It is more a problem asked in a theory of consciousness than in > physics. Here the theory of consciousness is basically the whole theology > of the universal machine, or the one common to all sound consistent > extension of a little one like PA. PA assumes induction, which we can put > already in the phenomenology. From the putself, we assume only RA(*). > > Bruno > > RA = Robinson’s Arithmetic (often called Q): > > 1) 0 ≠ s(x) > 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y) > 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) > 4) x+0 = x > 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y) > 6) x*0=0 > 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > An even cuter TOE is (without logic!): > > 1) If A = B and A = C, then B = C > 2) If A = B then AC = BC > 3) If A = B then CA = CB > 4) KAB = A > 5) SABC = AC(BC) > > Both are finite theories, or can be easily viewed as shemes of > proposition.. The second theory is purely equational. We cannot prove that > SK = KI in that theory, but that is not needed in the ontology, where they > are indeed different. > > > Both theories emulate all Löbian machines, which you can define by any > machine believing one of those axioms, + logic, + corresponding axioms of > induction. They are the machines we can interview on the theology, and the > key proper theological proposition, well they can communicate them only > conditionally to the computationalist hypothesis (of course), and some > “dangerous” self-soundness implicit assumption. It is here that there is a > theological trap (consistent in claiming that G* would necessarily apply to > us). > > Bruno > > > > > I was really talking about every theory considered has a *finite specification*. In Robinson Arithmetic (*RA*) above there are only 7 sentences listed. Of course an infinite number of sentences can can be produced from these via rules of the specification.
One can have the axioms of True Arithmetic (*TA*): A sentence S is an axiom of *TA* if S is evaluates to be true over the natural numbers. That would be an "infinite" theory. (Consider a theory of physics that just accumulated all sentences S that passed an experiment.) But also what I am talking about are theories with *non-quantitative domains* (are not numerical at all, but are experiential). *The Enactive Approach to Qualitative Ontology* https://philarchive.org/archive/PACITT from https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/material-semantics-for-unconventional-programming/ - 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.
