On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
Was Fractional Calculus known when E developed GR? AG -- 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/a88412aa-d88f-4318-86ba-ec8bab205197%40googlegroups.com.
