On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:54:42 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Mar 2019, at 15:32, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 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.
