> On 17 Jun 2019, at 20:02, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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?
Because of my working hypothesis (Mechanism). Then the reasoning shows that we cannot invoke an ontological commitment to solve the computationalist mind-body problem, which is reduced to a derivation of the apparent physics (testable) from arithmetic and its self-rerefntial modes implied by incompleteness. > > (And I still don't know what Mechanism is.) It is YD + CT. YD = “Yes doctor” (for the digital brain or body transplant) CT = Church’s thesis, or Church-Turing. Emil Post is the first to have postulate this. See my recent explanations. Tell me if you have a problem with YD, or with CT, or both. > > I am criticizing those who want to form a Physics Ecumenical Council to rule > (PEC) on what is a "legal" interpretation. CT has nothing to do with physics. I am actually the one who insist that physics becomes a branch of machine psychology, when we assume Mechanism. > > 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? Everett is not a new interpretation of QM. It is a new formulation. It is QM without the collapse postulate, which appearance is explained relatively to any base. > > > 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. That is only because we are in the Aristotelian era, and that some scientist talk like if they knew that a material universe exist *primitively” (Aristotle assumption). Of course that is just the arrogance of the dogmatic theologian, and it is not science. Indeed, science is still forbids to tackle theology, and atheists of different countries consume a lot of energy to keep theology in the hand of the charlatans, that they defend de facto. The problem is not science, but its misuse by authoritarians. Bruno > > > @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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18018c7b-2763-4cfd-97d3-e9afa69e72e3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/4415D41D-00AD-4E4D-B1BF-AFA379360137%40ulb.ac.be.
