On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 05:31:06AM -0700, PGC wrote: > > > 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]> 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 >
To be fair, in the contemporary crowded and noisy scientific marketplace of ideas, you do have to continously bang on about your ideas in order not to be drowned out. It shocked me that I constantly had to repeat myself, as things that I had realised decades ago are still widely misunderstood. One might ask what developments have occurred since Bruno submitted his thesis (I recall there's been one or two, but not many). The most fertile period of a scientist's life tends to be eir 20s and 30s, and none of us are spring chickens any more, which might explain it... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
