> On 8 May 2020, at 11:12, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Physicists nowadays assumes much more, like ZFC, to get a base in all Hilbert > space, for example. > > Bruno > > > > But in a real operational sense, that is not the case. > > There is nothing in theoretical physics that is applied to matching what is > observed in experiments or telescopes that depends on anything more than what > programs of computational physics (computational/numerical relativity and > quantum mechanics) can produce today on supercomputers in university and > government labs. > > Show me any observational data that would refute this.
A candidate is the measurement of a perfect quantum random bit. Anyway, digital physicalism is inconsistent, as it implies Mechanism, and Mechanism implies its falsity (my contribution), so computational physics, although very useful when doing physics, cannot be taken seriously in metaphysics (without elimination of person and consciousness, of course). 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/79cf1a58-4e9b-4ac7-9268-a015b5fedb30%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79cf1a58-4e9b-4ac7-9268-a015b5fedb30%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/4B142487-D4E3-4DF1-8163-2355CD307600%40ulb.ac.be.
