> On 25 Aug 2019, at 20:27, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:56:57 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 1:13 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> <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. > > Vic's view of the major symmetries were that they were picked out by us > because we wanted physical laws that applied at all times > (time-translation->energy conservation spacial-translation->momentum > conservation). He didn't say this was free choice, but one constrained by > nature. In other words we abstracted away some "geographic" problems to > reach them. Then he extended this idea to Point Of View Invariance. It's > application to the internal symmetries of particles was not so clear. We not > only had to choose the thing conserved by also the transformation which > conserved it. > > Brent > > > > But symmetries don't exist in some absolute, static Platonic realm and we > just "pick them out". They are not a priori (except perhaps in the Kantian > synthetic a priori sense). > > There are no symmetry breakings because they were broken already. > > That Vic put "man" here at the center (POV invariance) of the laws of physics > is completely contradictory to almost everything else he wrote. Whatever > symmetries there are accidental and contingent, not heavenly decree.
The physics of the digital machine has an important symmetry at its core (derived from the fact that “p -> []<>p” is satisfied in S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*: the material modes). The breaking of symmetries is brought by the subject invariance, mainly present in the two modes with “& p”, which brings some antisymmetry in the picture. SGRz1 proves an antisymmetry formula the Grz formula []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p. I have thought wrongly that this symmetry + antisymmetry makes the S4Grz1 theory collapse, but I was wrong. The quantisation []<>p does not collapse (we don’t have []<>p -> p). Here “man” is replace with “universal machine”. Mechanism sides with Vic on this. 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/2b6cef66-c2b3-453e-b7ac-74ffbba2414b%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b6cef66-c2b3-453e-b7ac-74ffbba2414b%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/1350546F-AC16-4DD7-A109-27C96D30A82B%40ulb.ac.be.
