On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects > and events. > > > > I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with > the scientific method, it might be better to not postulate objects and > events, as this seems to presuppose already Aristotelian theology. > > Np need to military science. Science can study anything, propose theories > about anything, as long as it gives mans of testing the theories, and > evaluating their benefits. > > > > > If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science that is > fine, but it in of itself does not give physics. > > > > Have you read my papers? I can prove that IF we assume Mechanism, then > physics has to be justified entirely by the machine theology (by which I > mean the study of the intensional variant of Solovay’s logic G*, as I have > explained sometimes). > > > I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might have to send me the paper with this development. The equation between quantum states and units of information is through the von Neumann quantum entropy and its parallel with Shannon;s formula. Transitions between states by interactions are then in a way modeled as a sort of computation or algorithmic-like process. I am not particularly given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though. LC > > > Feynman made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip > interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system > activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a > sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to > reality. > > > Like brain and universal machine. Yes, they dream a lot, but from their > own perspective, they belong to infinities of computations, and that is > what we observe below pur substitution level. > There is always some context with the basic reality, as a computation is a > very particular number relation. You need a reality to have computations, > but the physical reality is not an ontological reality: it becomes a first > person plural observable by infinities of numbers. That is testable, and > indeed it predicted both the “MWI” of physics, and the quantum formalism, > at least up to now. > The evidences accumulated that the physical observable are the canonical > observable of neopythagoreanism. > In fact, there are no evidence for a primary matter or for physicalism. > The Renaissance has been only half-enlightenment: science will resume when > we will also doubt in the fundamental (philosophy, religion) domain. > > You can compare with EPR. When I was young I was told that I would waste > my time in studying such philosophical papers, but Bell contradicted this > already and Shimony understood that what is thought as belonging to > philosophy can become science later, as both theory and experimentation are > improved. Same here: mechanism in theology is completely testable (that is: > refutable), so we will see, soon or later, if Nature contradicts Mechanism. > The truth itself can never be known as such (provably in the Mechanist > theories). > > Bruno > -- 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/ba408533-ee89-408c-8012-79ce3835502bn%40googlegroups.com.
