> On 28 Aug 2019, at 01:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8/27/2019 3:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Is the existence of the quantum foam, with virtual particles incessantly >> coming into existence and being annihilated, generally accepted? If I recall >> correctly, Bruce was extremely doubtful, claiming it's based on reifying, or >> making concrete, terms in an approximation method which are >> alleged to be off-shell particles. AG >> >> See the post I have just made on an article by Arnold Neumaier: >> https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/ >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/> >> >> Bruce > One thing I find interesting about modern physics is how very different > mathematical structures can be used for the same physics: virtual particles > or Green's functions, Hilbert space or path integrals, particles or fields, > curvature of spacetime or entropy gradient,... You would think this would > give pause to those who want to reify the ontology of the mathematics and > assert what's really real.
But only the physicalist reifies the physical things. Any reification there leads to a contradiction with Computationalism. We do have something similar with computer science. Very different mathematical structure are Turing universal, (numbers, combinators, gas, GOL-pattern, etc.) and so give the same fundamental science (same theology, same physics). But here to, it would ridiculous to reify the basic ontology, except for a matter of clarity and fixing the notion we can use. That is why I add always (combinators) when I say that I use the numbers, so that people does not believe that I believe in the necessity of assuming the numbers, as we can also assumes only K, S, KK, ... A theory is only a way to explore a (unknown) reality. Now, when doing metaphysics, we develop theories on the nature of that reality (ontological, phenomenological, etc.) and test the consequences (which are never “ontological”, as all ontologies are not testable. Apart from consciousness, no “real existence” is ever testable. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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/baea1d02-6071-5fbe-3953-cb6b29008edb%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/baea1d02-6071-5fbe-3953-cb6b29008edb%40verizon.net?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/FBDD3709-CB5B-4F8B-8D06-1708244CBBE0%40ulb.ac.be.
