On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:01:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Jun 2019, at 16:58, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 9:45:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Jun 2019, at 19:37, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:10:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/15/2019 12:29 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> I've basically lived my life believing what I want, I think. >>> I'm not trying to *convince* anyone of anything. >>> >>> One thing I might try to convince people of: >>> >>> *Physics is fiction.* >>> >>> Vic Stenger would have said "Physics is models". >>> >>> There are always alternative models, and new ones likely coming in the >>> future. >>> >>> To find *reality in a model* (to make truth claims in the vocabulary of >>> a model) is a form of religious fundamentalism. >>> >>> >>> You say you're not trying to convince anyone of anything, but you >>> repeatedly slap pejorative labels on other viewpoints. You use them like >>> Trump uses nick names. I avoids actually making an argument against them >>> while disparaging them. >>> >>> So in this specific instance: Where do you look for reality? Or do you >>> suppose there is no reality. If you trained a neural network so that it >>> could produce all the predictions about physics problems that the community >>> of physicists do, would it be just as good as the theories it replaces? >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> >> I don't criticize other theories. Any theory anyone want's top pursue is >> is fine. >> >> It's just the Physics Gestapo I criticize. >> >> >> It is not physics Gestaop. Only physicalist gestapo, or the usual >> confusion (Aristotle basic philosophy) between physics and metaphysics, >> which is incompatible with Mechanism. >> >> Bruno >> > > > > The Physics Gestapo apparently treats lightly those who say matter comes > out of arithmetic. :) > > > My work started in the very good environment, in the team of François > Englert, at the time where Brout was always there, and they discovered the > Higgs Boson. They were open minded, sincerely afraid of the EPR phenomenon, > and my role was just to reassure them we can apply QM on large distance. I > have used the Everett approach. I told them that once they use the natural > numbers, “many” many” spread in all directions. > > My “opponents”, which I have never met, are more like pure mathematician > disgusted when we apply their theories, doubly so if it is in the > fundamental questions, which then have been happy such works makes the > dogmatic materialist nervous. > > It is not always clear to distinguish genuine doubt by people, easily > explained through the materialist bias of current theologian and scientist > since long, from those who eventually grasp the point but fake to ignore it. > > Eventually it is up to you to present clearly your point, without > dismissing the difficulties which are multiple at many levels. The humans > are violent and susceptible, if you know a bit of his history. > > I would suggest you to never insult, nor take a dismissive tone or other > disguised form of violence. Those are the trick of bad faith, done by > people without argument. Only. > > Bruno > > > But why shouldn't *physics from arithmetic (universal numbers) *be questioned as other interpretations are? What is an experiment that supports this?
(And I still don't know what *Mechanism* is.) I am criticizing those who want to form a *Physics Ecumenical Council* to rule (PEC) on what is a "legal" interpretation. *The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as 'Canons' and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is dogmatic, but that every aspect of an ecumenical council is free of errors or is indefectible.* Now *MWI is considered by some to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them. Others claim MWI is directly testable. Everett regarded MWI as falsifiable since any test that falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI.* How should the PEC rile on MWI? One way to spot a quack: One who mandates retrocausal models are inconsistent with QM: *Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had started to attain some oppressive features and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology.* @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18018c7b-2763-4cfd-97d3-e9afa69e72e3%40googlegroups.com.
