On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:53:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics >> >> *The physics of Game of Thrones* >> >> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/ >> >> >> >> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism. >> >> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. >> That is not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even if >> that is the case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that phi_u = >> phi_u’ extensionally) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, if >> mechanism is correct. >> >> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make our >> substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” possible would >> be the entire physical universe. In that case, most of our biology and >> physics would be false. It is such a weakening of Mechanism, that it would >> make Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all the evidences that we have for >> Mechanism, like evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics. >> >> >> >> >> >> in another number? >> >> Or: Is there a a GoT reality? >> >> >> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining >> (every)thing. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model. > > > I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, then > it has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism). > > > > > > Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}): > > > https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like > > How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of elementary > arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language of > Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}. > > > Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it. > > How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, that > the mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. How, > and why is explained in most of my papers. > > > > > Why should our SM be the one, and not an alternative SM? > > > Because the sum on all computations is unique. > > That is the nice thing with Mechanism. It justifies why there is an > apparent physical universe, having the same law for any universal numbers. > It justify the existence of physics, and its unicity, even if it take the > shape of a mutilverse, or even some multi-multiverses. > > > > > If every SM equation is possible (not just the one equation above), what > is "explained”? > > > Only one SM equation can be possible (assuming mechanism of course, which > I do all along). > > > > > It makes more sense that Lagrangian_{SM} and Logic_{EA} are completely > contingent hypotheses written in languages created by us humans to model > reality. > > > That would identify physics and geography, but with mechanism, we know > already that geography is contingent, where the physical reality is lawful. > Would all material mode of self-reference have collapsed into propositional > calculus, there would be no physical laws, only geographical laws. > > Bruno > > > > The puzzle is that if one looks at the literal SM formula shown here:
https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png what if all the "2"s were changed to "3"s (or any "editing" like that). One gets from L_{SM(2)}) (the one above) to L_{SM(3)}, where the 2s have been replaced by 3s. Why would L_{SM(2)}) be the "necessary" theory, or could L_{SM(3)} "work" as a different physics? - 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.
