On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:14:35 AM UTC-6, PGC wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 11:39:21 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Feb 2019, at 20:43, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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]> 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. >> >> >> Or better: an infinite “theory”. In the frame of Mechanism, I prefer to >> consider such necessary infinite, and not recursively enumerable “theory” >> as kind of model, instead of theory. I consider that a theory has to be >> effective. Its theorems has to be recursively enumerable, its axioms has to >> be recursive. >> The set of all true sentences of any Turing-complete theory is not >> recursively enumerable, and is better to be seen as a type of >> model/semantics. >> >> Initially I identify words, numbers, machines, finitely presentable >> thing, code, software/hardware, as opposed to meaning, infinities, models, >> realities, … >> >> Nuances are then brown au fur et à mesure. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Consider a theory of physics that just accumulated all sentences S that >> passed an experiment.) >> >> >> That is more like facts, than theorems or potential beliefs of a person. >> >> >> >> >> >> But also what I am talking about are theories with *non-quantitative >> domains* (are not numerical at all, but are experiential). >> >> >> The experiential (qualitative) domain is obtained from the relation >> between (fixed point) semantics, but the one I used are intensional fixed >> point (like in the second recursion theorem) than extensional or >> denotational one. In particular the modes with “& p” is their definition >> provide the logic of first person experience, which have a form of >> knowledge which are not definable, indubitable, not provable, etc. >> > > This doesn't hold even as a general theoretical explanation of experience, > except for people that need certainty of some self-imposed solipsism or > consistent negative mental state. This is a form of joy eliminativism. "Not > definable" is way too strong: Everybody shares experiences and the > knowledge arising from them. > > Take dancing, similar to music, which is more of a first/second/third > person experience which is definable: entities moving their bodies for joy, > whether alone or shared, whether with music or without. And it can be > doubted: for example if Bruno proposes to teach somebody how to dance with > Bp & p, everybody is right to refuse to pay him as a dance instructor. And > this is provable when they see Bruno dance: there is considerable certainty > in the assertion that many students would refuse him as a dance instructor > upon seeing his moves. With the exception of course of making a copy of > Bruno, who would definitely find refuge in this bloodless, lifeless > metaphysics and be the first in line for a lesson, with a notepad, taking > everything extremely literally, which is all well and good, but evidently > misses the point of dancing almost entirely. > > So nope, not even of use on its own terms as a general account of > experience. Sexuality, altered states, cooking, laughter, discourse of > various types etc. would be other areas in which this alleged account that > Bruno tries to pass on as experience, fails to the nth degree. And the > metaphysics it points towards is just as bleak. > > The old Shaw cliché quote comes to mind: > > *“This is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by > yourself as a mighty one. Being a force of nature instead of a feverish, > selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world > will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my > life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my > privilege to do for it what I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I > die, for the harder I work, the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own > sake. Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I > have got hold of for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as > possible before handing it on to future generations.”* > > Shaw metaphysics from this quote is more solid, clear, and fun than > quasi-solipsism of intuitionist make. That said, I have no problems with > numbers having qualities and relations to form other qualities. Music is > full of that. PGC > > >
*joy eliminativism* Great new expression! - 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.
