> On 22 Jan 2020, at 20:48, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:10:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Jan 2020, at 10:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 2:00:23 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542 >> >> <https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542> >> >> >> Proof that physics = witchcraft with equations. >> >> Maybe programming (implementing simulations in programs) would be better. > > > Note that if Mechanism is correct, the physical reality cannot be emulated by > a computer. The reason is that if “we” can be emulated by a computer, physics > has to be reduced into a statistic on *all* computations, and that can be > shown to be not Turing emulable, despite of course it has to be Turing > Universal at least. > The complexity of the physical reality escapes the arithmetical complexity > hierarchy, but it might not escape the analytical hierarchy. For > consciousness, the complexity should escape the analytical hierarchy, and > plausibly all possible hierarchies. > > Bruno > > > > But what of the current practice of computational cosmology [ > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.00116 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.00116> ], > computational astrophysics [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_astrophysics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_astrophysics> ], numerical > relativity [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity>], computational quantum > mechanics [ > http://research.physics.illinois.edu/electronicstructure/498cqm/498gen-info.html > > <http://research.physics.illinois.edu/electronicstructure/498cqm/498gen-info.html>] > ... > all used with the largest supercomputers?
That is very good work. The fact that the physical reality is not Turing emulable does not imply it cannot be approximated using computer tools. Indeed, if that was not the case brain would not have appeared in the physical reality, or Mechanism would be wrong. > > What in current theoretical physics is beyond all the programs in all these > codebases? The relation between the first person prediction and a primitively material reality. > > If there is something then that thing is :beyond our understanding. Right. With mechanism, all there *is* is arithmetic, and arithmetic, even if we limit ourselves to its 3p description, is beyond our complete understanding, but that is what make its exploration interesting. This is something that the universal machine "understand easily”, to be short. 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/80c60b37-2ac3-441d-8e16-ab9bb97ad2cc%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/80c60b37-2ac3-441d-8e16-ab9bb97ad2cc%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/EEAC4536-DAC4-4257-A528-4ABB3497A233%40ulb.ac.be.
