> On 8 Oct 2019, at 19:17, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> 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] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous >> >> <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”).
That is true for any theory in which you can prove that there is a universal machine (in the mathematical sense of Post, Church, Kleene, Turing, etc. A fortiori that remains true for any physics in which we can build a universal machine, that is, a computer. > There are other arithmetics for hyperarithmetical theory. With generalised Church-turing thesis. Yes, that exists and plays some role concerning the “analytical truth”, which plays some fundamental role for all the self-referential modes. But those are not new arithmetic, hyper arithmetical concerns the base of the analytical, and belongs to the phenomenology of the arithmetical. > > 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. OK. Bruno > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251723db-29a3-49ab-9d1b-92f8c234378e%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251723db-29a3-49ab-9d1b-92f8c234378e%40googlegroups.com?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/51696AB3-313D-4196-96FC-FA21557B51DA%40ulb.ac.be.
