On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That might be, but a programming language that has no context with > anything is not that valuable. > > > > At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that > language is based. A language per se is not enough. > > > > > > At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect > with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements. > > > I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person > indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on > all “creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological > border given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine. > > With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or > better “theology” …). > > Bruno >
But that has nothing to do with *physics*.. Physics only describes (in a language). Musing about its "meaning" is for philosophers to waste their time on. "Our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything [in physics], use only finite computer resources by treating everything as finite." -- Max Tegmark https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344 @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/7915f095-f2ae-43d2-8dd1-2ad6a8b7b4a8n%40googlegroups.com.
