Shouldn't that come out of the Wolfram Model?
Probably could.
@philipthrift
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> How about p-adic K-theory and topology?
>
> This has some possible connection to physics, but physics most likely does
> not need all the mathematical theorem-proof aspects of this. We physicists
> after all tend to have a bit of a Babylonian maths perspective, as Feynman
> put it.
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 3:10:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Over the past few decades there is an explosion of people who think the
>> "mathiest" math will help in advancing physics.
>>
>> This is a typical example:
>>
>> *Modern Physics formalized in Modal Homotopy Type Theory*
>>
>> https://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Modern+Physics+formalized+in+Modal+Homotopy+Type+Theory
>>
>> There are many other examples based on many other areas of advanced
>> mathematics.
>>
>> None of this stuff helps in understanding nature - supposedly what
>> physics is about, or is any way useful in using physics in real
>> applications (technology).
>>
>> It can all be interesting pure mathematics, but actually worthless.
>>
>>
>> Actually it's worse than worthless, It suggests nature (or rather, the
>> best code of nature we have so far) is this stuff.
>>
>> @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/5bf0700d-f00b-4597-96b6-7313bf7087ae%40googlegroups.com.
