> On 3 Mar 2019, at 13:52, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 5:58:17 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 1 Mar 2019, at 19:32, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Reading all the above in the context of >>> >>> Naturalness and Emergence >>> David Wallace >>> February 20, 2019 >>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15757/1/naturalness_emergence.pdf >>> <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15757/1/naturalness_emergence.pdf> >>> >>> leads to the conclusion that our current language(s) of physics is(are) >>> most likely wrong. >> >> >> A proposition can be wrong. I am not sure what you or Wallace would mean by >> a language being wrong. Perhaps Wallace meant that our metaphysics (most of >> the time the materialist one) is wrong, which makes more sense. Perhaps he >> does not dare to say so. It is not well seen in some circles. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> By 'language' in the above paper he means 'mathematical language' and he >> means precisely the language in which QFT an GR are actually written in >> (seen when you look at them on paper or on a screen): Sentences are made of >> mathematical symbols and variables, but the basics begin with a selection of >> sentences (axioms) from which a theory is made. > > OK. Thanks. That makes more sense. > > > >> So he is really saying the axioms are likely wrong, and even new primitives >> (mathematical symbols) may have to be invented. > > Of course, I don’t think so. It is phenomenologically true, but for the > ontology, i.e. the minimal amount of things which needs to be assumed, s, 0, > + and x are enough (added to logic). In fact, S and K, with “(“ and “)”, plus > “=“ are enough, even without logic. (I always assume Mechanism, by default, > to be sure). > > Bruno > > > > > > Here's an example David Wallace presents (as an "outlandish" possibility): > Suppose in pi (which is computable, so has a program (a spigot one, in fact) > that produces its digits. Suppose somewhere in that stream of digits is the > Standard Model Equation > > (say written in LaTeX/Math but rendered here) > > https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png > > So what could this mean? (He sort of leaves it hanging.)
To be sure, it is undecidable if such pattern exist, and its existence would not be remarkable. Now, take Champernow’s number, c = 0,1234567891011121314… This one provably contains contains the Standard Model equation, and all its variants, mistaken or correct. It contains the Bible, Alice in Wonderland, and even its translation in Chinese, etc. It contains all finite texts. But, unlike a universal dovetlaier, or the collection of sigma_ sentences, it does not encode any execution of programs, and its “richness” is as rich than futile. Not so with the initial fragment of model of any any Turing complete/ Our universe emerges (non computably) form such minimal reality, and it is absolutely undecidable if, ontologically, there is anything more. Of course (if you studied a bit the literature) phenomenologically, that is necessarily false. The little sigma_1 arithmetic cannot be bounded from inside. It is a form of Skolem “paradox”. Some mathematical structure are very tiny when seen from outside, and quite huge seen from inside. 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.
