> On 3 Mar 2019, at 16:46, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 >>>> <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 >> <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 >> <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.
Einstein said that he needed just a pen and a bit of papers. With mechanism, pen and papers is offered freely by the generous arithmetical reality, in the limits of infinitely many first person experiences. 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
