On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:53:36 AM UTC+2, 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).
>
Prove this exclusive status.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
Which by now have achieved status of original research, right?
With everybody cited in it that's dead and their eternal peer support
(where we are not physicalists, but instead the spiritual-imaterial
brothers of Einstein and Gödel, kissed by god's gift of the only original
contribution on a planet full of idiots), I think folks wouldn't do
terribly by taking the status of "explained" with a grain of salt.
If things were so clear, why would it require an infinite or 20-year amount
of posting to justify? Infinite oracle shit is easy, but what you miss for
years in the catholic "seriousness" dependence of having fundamental
certainty in our status as Gödel's progeny and architect of the future of
science, is that support and resources can be obtained from exactly such
infinite oracle activity. Imagine having poured just a fraction of the 20
year posting oracle activity into reaching out to others on their own
terms, visiting some conferences, and therefore creating funding and peer
support for fundamental research in less bounded ways.
Over the years, it becomes more and more evident as I peruse these lists
that you appear to have little to no genuine interest for fundamental
research.. in the sense of the kind of seriousness that is willing to
absorb genuine risk and indeterminacy with people and peers not content to
stare into screens and split rhetorical hairs. People can improvise with
that indeterminacy, and guess what? Sometimes they improvise less wrong. PGC
--
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.
