On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
*Fractal calculus and its geometrical explanation* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379718311951 Fractal calculus The fractal <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/fractals> calculus is relatively new ... ... @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/0f530eae-89e7-441c-b0f3-3a2340d6dbd1%40googlegroups.com.
