> On 21 Aug 2019, at 13:03, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:28:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Aug 2019, at 19:38, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:27:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 19 Aug 2019, at 21:11, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 19 Aug 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 4:08:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 18 Aug 2019, at 13:57, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:53:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Model theory illustrate that pure mathematics has meaning. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A model is a so-called 'structure': >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/ >>>>> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/> >>>>> >>>>> But allowable structures, typically mathematical entities in the model >>>>> theories of many, are only material (physical) entities in the model >>>>> theory of Hartry Field. >>>> >>>> That is a bit of nonsense. Or Hartree Field notion of model has nothing to >>>> do with what logicians called a model (a mathematical structure with a >>>> notion of satisfaction). >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For example, a model of arithmetic could be an actual semiconductor >>>>> logic gate chip with RAM. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t understand this. A model of arithmetic is a set of object which >>>> provides an interpretation of the terms (0, S(0), …), and an >>>> interpretation of + and * (in terms of infinite set of couples). >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Conventional mathematical logicians only speak, write, and think in terms >>>> of a fictional world. >>> >>> With mechanism, all worlds are fictional. The only real things are 0, 1, 2, >>> …, or K, S, KK, … >>> >>> Intuitively I doubt less that 4*n is even for all n, or that K is an >>> eliminator, than F = GmM/r^2, which is an infinite extrapolation made from >>> a finite number of fact. >>> >>> Also, when doing metaphysics, it is better to not decide in advance what is >>> real and what is fiction. >>> >>> Now, if you have a doubt that a number, when multiplied by 4, gives an even >>> number, I am not sure I can help. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> And that includes their models/structures/interpretations. >>> >>> Mechanism is OK with this. It simplifies the life to admit, even if >>> temporarily, that a bit more exist, but at some point, that existence can >>> be put in the phenomenology. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The Field type of semantics of logic and mathematics only has actual >>>> material entities (like computers at Best Buy, supercomputers at Los >>>> Alamos National Lab, natural objects found in nature) in its domains. >>> >>> That is the Aristotelian axiom where “real” is defined by “physically >>> real”, or “observable”, but the dream argument rise a doubt on this, >>> especially when we understand that all computations can be proved to exist >>> in arithmetic (even before translating this by “all models. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Conventional mathematical logicians may not like it, but that is their own >>>> psychological problem. >>> >>> >>> If they believe in Digital Mechanism. they become inconsistent. That’s the >>> whole point of the Universal Dovetailer argument. Unless your “matter” has >>> a role for consciousness which is not Turing emulable, it will be realised >>> arithmetically. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> Given all the novel, unpredicted stuff one reads every day in the science >>> news feeds about some new material (materials science), molecules, phases >>> (of matter), why is it so hard to think that matter is not some naive >>> ("numerical-Turing-emulable") stuff that most theoretical physicists think >>> it is and that it has no protopsychical properties. >> >> But matter is NOT Turing emulable, once we assume “we” are Turing emulable. >> Matter is only maps emerging from all relative computation going through our >> mind state. It sums the whole universal dovetailing at any instant. At first >> sight this leads to an inflation of possible histories, but if we take into >> account the logic of selreference, what subsist is a “nay-world”-like >> inflation of normal consistent histories, although the normality is only >> suggested right now, and the work must be pursue to compare the physics >> extracted from the statistics on all computations and the empirical world. >> >> So why introduce a fundamental magic stuff, when the appearance of that >> “magic” is explained by Mechanism? And worst, if assumed, it requires us to >> find a non computationalist theory of mind, despite the lack of evidence for >> it. >> >> Maybe you are right and some stuff exists. In that case Mechanism has to be >> wrong (by UDA or equivalent). But there are no evidences for this, and as >> long as there is no evidences, it is preferable, Imo, to not commit oneself >> in some ontology. >> >> In the news feed in physics, we don’t find evidences for stuff, only >> evidence for a physical reality, and thanks to QM, it pretty well confirm >> Mechanism (not 19th century mechanism, but a post-Gödel antireductionist >> sort of Mechanism). >> >> Mechanism predicts infinitely many surprises in “theology”, and plausibly >> many one are inherited in the physical realm, which realise again all >> computation but with a stable relative measure. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> The reason to suspect that arithmetic comes from matter (M→A) vs. matter >> comes from arithmetic (A→M) is that with A→M there many Ms. > > On the contrary: Arithmetic (A) explains why there is many geographies and > history, but only one physics, the same fr all universal machine. That is due > to the fact that Physics (Matter, M) emerges from the first person > indeterminacy on *all* computations. > So A explains why there is only one M possible, and why the physical reality > is the same for all universal machine/number. > With A, the physical laws are justified being laws, and we get some criteria > (lacking in physics+physicalism) to distinguish physics and geography. > > > > >> But we together experience only one M. When a new material phenomenon is >> discovered in one place, someone on the other side of the Earth can check >> and experience the same material phenomenon. If A→M were the case, then why >> would there be any stability in observations of M? > > Because, if Mechanism is correct, physics is entirely given by the material > modes imposed by incompleteness on all machines. The math confirms the > presence of that physics, and already shows it to be a quantum physics, which > is indeed a calculus of first person plural indeterminacy on many histories > (unless we introduce the infamous collapse, of course …). > > With Mechanism, the physical universe disappear, but the laws of physics are > made more solid, as they become theorems in arithmetic. > > Bruno > > > > > > > How does Arithmetic define "only one physics”?
Arithmetic contains or executes (in the block-statical way) all computations. Your first person is distributed on all computations going through your current (relative) first person state. To make any prediction on the future of your possible inputs, you need to take all the computations into account, and the laws of physics is what is invariant in all consistent extensions. See the entire UDA argument in my papers. > > I know physics (fundamentally) is a disaster today (2019), Let us not exaggerate perhaps. Quantum Mechanics is a jewel, and GR is not bad. But a fundamental theory is still lacking. But it could be found, even without Mechanism. The advantage of mMechanism is that we get directly (almost) a theory of qualia, with a theory of quanta as special case. > but how does the hodgepodge Standard Model and haphazard unification (w/GR) > attempts point to anything but an idiosyncratic Matter (which it is up to > physics to "model")? Noether’s theorem explains already a lot. You might take a look at Vic Stenger’s book “The comprehensible universe”. But time and space are perhaps too much taken for granted, even and especially in string theory. I do think that string theory progresses in the good direction, from a pure physical point of view. But QM (without collapse) might require Mechanism and its extraction of the wave, and strings. It certainly does if we want to have both qualia and quanta, and decent relations between them. As long as theology is not back in science, science has not yet even begun. But I do think that the standard model will not be overthrown. It will be unified from our understanding on the nature of space, and later, perhaps unified through arithmetic, group theory and number theory. It will take some times. Before that, let us remain open to all possibilities, including the possibility that Mechanism is true, in which case we do have the TOE, and a lot of work to test it in a better and more precise way than today. 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/a5bda4f0-589d-404c-bd58-093413abaa4b%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5bda4f0-589d-404c-bd58-093413abaa4b%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/4C76C2EC-76CF-4A60-9E82-D45F5CF4C7CC%40ulb.ac.be.
