> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com >> <applewebdata://785799C2-6972-45E6-9F97-1CF1705F2E8F>> 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.
I will do that. > > 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. Mechanism makes this impossible. The physical universe is an emerging, in the mind of the universal machine, of a *non* computable first person (plural) pattern. At each instant (indexical computational step) you have an infinity of computations (arithmetical concept) going through you state. To predict any first person experience (like seing a the position of a needle on some device), you need “in principle” to look at all computations going through that state, and that can be shown to be not computable a priori. A slogan could be: IF I am a machine, then what I am not is NOT a machine. Most attributes of a machine (even non universal) are not computable/decidable. Already, the set of programs computing any functions is not a decidable set (Rice theorem), and no person-machine can know which machine support her, or which computations access her. (This is easy to prove, but is also rather obvious if you thing to program factorial using some partially undecided subroutine). I will send you paper soon. Meanwhile, you can consult my sane04 summary papers, http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> and if your institution follows some journal, you might get them from herebelow: Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04) Plotinus PDF paper with the link: Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf (http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf>) Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132 Marchal B. Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218. (available at http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/) > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba408533-ee89-408c-8012-79ce3835502bn%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba408533-ee89-408c-8012-79ce3835502bn%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DA5BCD09-D479-45D3-8C46-1D149A6CEE33%40ulb.ac.be.
