> On 4 Dec 2019, at 23:58, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:43:35 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:48 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > On 11 Nov 2019, at 12:45, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:18 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can not >> access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we can >> personally observe. >> >> That is not scientific realism -- that is metaphysical mysticism. > > Hmm… You *can* say that, but then you need to assess that your invocation of > physical brain is such metaphysical mysticism. The point is that this version > of metaphysical mysticism is incompatible with the mechanist assumption. > > It is not a metaphysical to believe in the existence of a physical brain > underlying our conscious minds -- it is the result of solid scientific > evidence. If it is incompatible with the mechanist assumption, then that is > because the mechanist assumption is useless rubbish. > > > >> Evolution has precisely nothing to do with it. The preferred basis is >> determined by quantum Darwinism > > You can’t invoke quantum mechanics when using Mechanism, unless you explain > why the quantum formalism emerges from the statistics on all computations > (realised in arithmetic) seen from inside (a notion handled by the > self-referential logic, but some thought experience can give the main ideas > without delving too much in the provability logics). > > > I can invoke quantum mechanics when doing physics. The trouble with your > rubric "the quantum formalism emerges from the statistics on all computations > seen from the inside..." is that is precisely meaningless. You have never > given any indication of what "The statistics on all computations" might mean. > How do you select "all computations", and what "statistics" do you use on > them? And what might that give you, if anything? > > Your grand promises have never actually delivered anything, Bruno. You seem > to think that you can lay down the law about quantum mechanics, but you have > no idea how to get even the Schroedinger equation from your "statistics over > computations". Until you can actually produce something that even vaguely > approaches an account of the physical world we see around us, you can be > safely ignored. > > Bruce > > > > > Something close: > > The universal path integral supports a quantum theory of the universe in > which the world that we see around us arises out of the interference between > all computable structures. > > The universal path integral > > Seth Lloyd > <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Lloyd%2C+S>, Olaf > Dreyer <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Dreyer%2C+O> > (Submitted on 12 Feb 2013) > Path integrals represent a powerful route to quantization: they calculate > probabilities by summing over classical configurations of variables such as > fields, assigning each configuration a phase equal to the action of that > configuration. This paper defines a universal path integral, which sums over > all computable structures. This path integral contains as sub-integrals all > possible computable path integrals, including those of field theory, the > standard model of elementary particles, discrete models of quantum gravity, > string theory, etc. The universal path integral possesses a well-defined > measure that guarantees its finiteness, together with a method for extracting > probabilities for observable quantities. The universal path integral supports > a quantum theory of the universe in which the world that we see around us > arises out of the interference between all computable structures.
Not sure what they mean by computable structure. But that is the kind of physics which get closer and closer to being consistent with mechanism, but they still assumes a physical reality and even some big part of quantum mechanics making this not usable to solve the mind-body problem. It does progress in the tools needed to test Digital Mechanism though. Bruno > > Comments: 10 pages, plain TeX > Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph) > Cite as: arXiv:1302.2850 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2850> [quant-ph] > (or arXiv:1302.2850v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2850v1> [quant-ph] > for this version) > > @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/02475f46-3e0b-4f63-8dd2-c57c6841bc15%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/02475f46-3e0b-4f63-8dd2-c57c6841bc15%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/5B11D5E4-B9A8-49A0-96F9-AC2C19E26432%40ulb.ac.be.
