> On 18 Apr 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:56:54 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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] <>> 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/ >>>> >>>> <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 >>> >>> <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 >> <https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png> >> > > It is somehow justified by the data, and some theoretical ideas, in the book > by Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli: Non Commutative Geometry, Quantum Filed > and Motives. That is page 167 of that book, and I am not up there. > Yet, the main ideas are rather well explained in the more readable book by > Vic. Stenger. > > But both Alain Connes and Vic Stenger are doing physics, and so they assumes > much more than what is permitted when we assume computationalism, where even > the starting ideas of Vic Stenger have to be derived from arithmetic (using > also the mechanist principle of the invariance of consciousness for some > digital functional substitution made at some level). > > Now, having said that, it is clear that Alain Connes suspect that equation to > be related at least to the arithmetical reality of the prime numbers, and his > work is among those work in fundamental physics which illustrates deep > relations between physics and number theory. > > For a logician, that insight makes sense. Elementary arithmetic is Turing > universal, and is thus an acceptable “theory” of Everything. But there are > some reason to believe that the distribution of the prime numbers encodes the > full complexity of the marriage between addition and multiplication, which is > responsible for that Turing universality, and this should be captured by the > Riemann zeta function, as it contains global information on all primes. > > Unfortunately, even if the correct universal quantum field theory is > successfully extracted from the elementary arithmetic of the prime number, or > other sort of numbers, that would still be not quite satisfactory, for a > computationalist, because that theory should still be extracted from > arithmetic through the mathematics of arithmetical self-reference to get > right the distinctions and the relations between the first person plural > quanta and the first person singular quanta, beyond to get right the reason > of the physical observations existence. > > > > > > > > > >> what if all the "2"s were changed to "3"s (or any "editing" like that). > > The theory will no more predict what we observe. (Physicist answer) > > But that is independent of the fact that with Mechanism, we have to derive > the correct physics from arithmetical (or theoretical computer science) > self-reference theory. See my papers for an explanation of the why, and the > how, and what has been already be done. > > In a nutshell, it can be shown that a digital machine (in the non material > sense of Turing, Church, Post, Gödel, Kleene, etc.) is unable to distinguish > introspectively (to feel) the difference between processed by a this or that > universal number/machine. This leads to a first person indeterminacy, “lived” > by the machine concerned, on all its consistent accessible continuations in > the arithmetical computations, or in the universal dovetailing on all > computations, and the physical reality has to be recovered by a statistics on > those computations. > > That is very hard to do in any brute direct way, but it is easy to extract > the logic of the “measure one” (and zero) by using the fact that > incompleteness makes it impossible to see that []p, []p & p (knowledge), []p > & <>t, (observation, bet) and []p & <>t & p are equivalent extensionally. And > indeed, on the partial computable propositions (the sigma_1 arithmetical > propositions) this gives different quantum logics, with a semantic of > “alternate histories”, close to the “consistent histories” of Omnes and > Griffith, but also Gell-Man & Hartle. > > The little textbook by Chris J. Isham (Lecture on Quantum theory, the > Mathematical and Structural Relations, Imperial College Press, 1995, London) > provides some explanation on the relation between quantum logic and > “many-world” (QM without collapse). Another quite useful and a bit older book > on this is the book by Richard Hugues: The Structure and Interpretation of > Quantum Mechanics, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1989). Of course > they do not address the mind-body issue, which enforces a “many-histories” > interpretation of elementary arithmetic, on which a theorem similar to > Gleason theorem is expected, unless mechanism is wrong. > > You might perhaps study my papers: > > Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog > Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 > <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157> > > Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in > Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 > <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993> > > B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International > System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, > Amsterdam, 2004. > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> > (sane04) > > > > >> >> 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? > > > Of course, today we don’t know. If the “2 or 3” is not settled by the “unique > physics”, it would mean that such number are geographical/contingent > differences, and that we can access consistent extensions with 2, and > consistent extensions with 3 in arithmetic. > > Bruno > > > > > I know of the Vic Stenger (laws-from-symmetry) approach (from the old Atoms > and the Void group). > > The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? > https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Comprehensible_Cosmos.html?id=09sPAQAAMAAJ > > <https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Comprehensible_Cosmos.html?id=09sPAQAAMAAJ> > > > It's possible that the "laws" of nature - physics, chemistry, biology, > psychology, ..- can come from a single simplicity, > > or that it's more of a babel - like the theoretical sciences suggest - with > theoretical physics, chemistry, biology having separate vocabularies, > frameworks, and theories.
The whole point of the fundamental research consists in finding a theory which account for all theories. The goal is to unify the different knowledge/belief, without dismissing data (like physics do with respect to consciousness and qualia). The laws of nature are reduce to a statistics of number dream, where a dream is a computation supporting one, or a collection of Löbian machine(s). 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.
