On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous >>> >>> *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous >>> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence* >>> >>> >>> >>> Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero >>> physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the >>> question in metaphysics. >>> >>> Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from >>> arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as >>> far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the >>> first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences >>> today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, >>> or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference. >>> >>> Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for >>> anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the >>> existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the >>> correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not >> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with >> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics >> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical >> theory*. >> >> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises >> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may >> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their >> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical. >> >> @philipthrift >> > > It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be > applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from > spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG > >> >> >> > A traditional calculus alternative that could match the "continuity"-appearing empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.
*A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus* International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus @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/eb564e69-abb4-4232-a69e-c2d09a68d7a3%40googlegroups.com.
