On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 4:42:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Aug 2019, at 20:27, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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 ]) 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 > > > > The way I see this is there is first *a cauldron of random syntax soup* from which some "symmetries" are formed (by happenstance).
"How then does one find (some) mathematics useful in science? The key concept is that matter has codicality: It has a programmatic, or codical, nature. It follows repetitive behavior that can be described programmatically. (Possibly, matter that does not have this nature would fall apart and could not form a universe.)" - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/mathematical-pulp-fictionalism/ But even if some symmetries are present in all possibilities of matter (that does not fall apart), they were not dictated from above. @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/1de36765-3f4e-4111-8ada-769e9a7d5d05%40googlegroups.com.
