On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of
>> number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing
>> nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).
>>
>> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy
>> between the physics extracted from arithmetic), it is just premature to
>> assume some material world, especially for singularising some computations,
>> which would be like invoking a god, indeed.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> I don't get "physics extracted form arithmetic”:
>
>
> It shows that you are sane of mind!
>
> It is not obvious. I suggest you read my sane04 paper, and ask me
> question. The first half (the experience in 8 steps) is the version for non
> mathematician, except at steps 8, you need to know that the computations
> are arithmetical notion.
>
>
>
>
> There are dozens of so-called quantum-gravity theories that have been
> written over the past 40 years. Including the dark matter, dark energy,
> cosmological inflation variants, maybe dozens of dozens theories. Most on
> arXiv.
>
>
> But that is physics. Not metaphysics.
>
> With mechanism, physics is emerging from the statistics on all
> computations, that entails already a version of “many-world”. When the math
> is done, we get very close to Isham-Gell-man-Hartle-Omnes-Griffith version
> of the many-histories interpretation of quantum mechanics, except that here
> it is deduce from arithmetic (through the mathematical theory of
> self-reference, mainly due to Gödel).
>
>
>
> All these to some degree are just as good as the other in the sense that
> there is nothing wrong with their mathematics.
>
>
> Not one equation of physics works with mechanism. It seems to work, but
> only because it uses a brain-mind identity thesis, which does not work with
> mechanism. To predict an eclipse with physics, you need to postulate you
> are not reconstituted elsewhere, and this cannot work with mechanism, as
> you are reconstituted “elsewhere” ad infinitum.
>
> Please read the more detailed explanations in my paper, or in this list.
>
>
>
>
> You put "what follows from what" of one ot those theories in a theorem
> proving checking system and they should check out according to following
> mathematical rules.
>
> The only way to "weed them out" is with data from observations of a
> supposedly actual real world out there. Doesn't that suggest an "external"
> material reality? Otherwise, why do experiments or record observations if
> all theories are "mathematically" neutral?
>
>
> On the contrary, the self-reference are so constraining that there is only
> one mathematical physics: the same for all universal number. It does not
> depends on the choice of the initial phi_i (enumeration of the partial
> computable functions, or programmable partial functions).
>
>
>
>
>
> And there are formulations of QM (like Dowker's "histories") where there
> is no "quantum logic" involved.It can be dispensed with.
>
>
> ?
>
> For one, you might gives a reference. Dowker histories are the same as
> Omnes and Griffith, as far as I know, and it obeys a quantum logic. The
> many histories works both for the quantum wave, and for arithmetic, and it
> explains why nature looks like a wave of amplitude of probabilities.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
I define "mathematical physics" (re: *there is only one mathematical
physics*) to be any of the mathematical language entities that are "written
down" by a human (or AI program!) that propose themselves to be a code of
nature.
One example is (a version of) The Standard Model equation:
https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilde_Marcolli
That's all mathematical physics is: The collection of all such things.
With underdetermination of (scientific) theories, another mathematical
physics could be just as "good" as any current one.
The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may "approximate" it
with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but unless there is some
sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the way things will always be.
- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
