On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 11:26:54 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:24:47PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:28:39AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 20 Aug 2019, at 19:38, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > This answer is a bit glib IMHO. In some ways it echos the statements > I > > give in section 9.3 of my book "Theory of Nothing", but which I > freely > > admitted I felt were provisional and too hand-wavy. However, I > believe > > that Markus Mueller has since provided an answer in the form of a > > theorem (Thm 2.3 "Emergence of an Objective Reality") in his paper > > arXiv: 1712.01816. > > > > That paper to me is probably the most significant result in this > area > > since I published my book. > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------- > > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Principal, High Performance Coders > > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > > > > > So how does one get from (simple) > > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01816v1.pdf > > > > to (complex) > > > > > https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png > > (the Lagrangian Standard Model equation) > > > > ? > > > > @philipthrift > > > > A partial answer is explored in Stenger's "Comprehensible Cosmos". In > brief, its a combination of symmetries and symmetry breaking. But, as > they say, the devil is in the details. > > Cheers > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > <javascript:> > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
Ironically (and I thought this at the time almost 20 years ago now when I was interacting with Vic on his old group [ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/atvoid ]) is that "laws from symmetry" and "symmetry-breaking were contradictory to his anti-Platonist philosophy of science. It was his way to address the idea of a universe not created by God, but a way I think both unnecessary and wrong. *A universe born of pure randomness and so-called symmetries forming which are merely contingent that gives a universe we just happen to be in* makes sense instead: It is the opposite of symmetry-breaking. It is happenstance symmetry-forming. That there is a prior symmetry that is then broken is pure Platonism. @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/e06741ae-a497-48f4-80d1-a25b220de022%40googlegroups.com.
