On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:54:42 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Mar 2019, at 15:32, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 6:52:41 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 [ Unicode ] 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.) >> >> - pt >> > > > Apropos Dilbert cartoon: > > https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-03-03 > > > > Poor Dilbert will have an infinite task to fail its simulated creature. He > will have to revise its limit an infinity of times. If the simulation is > “physically correct”, there is no sense to localise the mind of the > creature in the simulation, as its supervene on infinity of computations. > If the simulation is physically incorrect, the creature will see it, by > comparing the arithmetic physics with their observation, unless Dilbert > intervenes each time to make them dumb. > > We can experimentally test if the empirical world is fundamental or not, > and the results obtained today is that it is very plausibly only a symptom > of a deeper, and simpler, non material reality. That’s why we have to come > back to Plato, and take distance from Aristotle, at least if we are willing > to bet the brain is a (material/natural) digitalizable machine. > > Bruno > >
Paralleling the Donald Rumsfeld quote: You go to do science [ or engineering ] with the matter you have, not the matter you might want to have. - 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.
