Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Hmm! Reminds me of the Laundry Novels by writer Charles Stross.

"I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft."

-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems


I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft.
@philipthrift
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics I 
have learned.     Ronald
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systemshttps://github.com/maxitg/ SetReplace
cf. https://www.wolframphysics. org/
Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute of 
Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
“I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating.” 
https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/physicists-criticize- 
stephen-wolframs-theory-of- everything/
“I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8585716-989e-4ab7-89a9-b92905256311%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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/1001949433.343055.1589406491742%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft.

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics 
> I have learned.
>  Ronald
>
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
>> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>>
>> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>>
>> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
>> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>>
>> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
>> communicating.” 
>>
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>>
>> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
>> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>>
>>
>> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8585716-989e-4ab7-89a9-b92905256311%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vaccines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/13/2020 9:40 AM, John Clark wrote:
The average vaccine takes 10.7 years to go from an idea to something 
the average person can get, the fastest one was the Ebola vaccine and 
it took 5 years. That's way too slow.


It's about how long Salk's polio vaccine took.  He developed a vaccine 
in 1950 and did the first trials on himself and family and announced he 
had a vaccine in 1953.  There were public trials in 1954 and the 
national campaign of vaccinations started in 1955. This was pushed about 
as fast as possible because the public fear of polio was so great.


It takes such a long time because before clinical trials start an 
experimental vaccine only has a 6% chance of ever reaching the market; 
even if it gets to the clinical trials stage there is only a 33% 
chance of success. But a COVID-19 vaccine is so important we can't 
proceed with doing business the usual way, we need a massive Manhattan 
Project style effort. About 100 different vaccines are some stage of 
development and at least half of them should be aggressively pursued 
in parallel. And we should definitely use human challenge trials, some 
will say that's immoral but I think the moral path is the one that 
produces the least sickness and death.


I agree.  But there's a catch: a vaccine may not be possible.  In 
today's LA Times there is the story of a woman who got covid19, 
recovered, tested negative, and got it again and was hospitalized and 
just as sick the second time, for a month.




There is also the problem of scaling up, even after a good Vaccine is 
found we need to make enough for 7.6 billion people.


That's not necessarily true.  We've gotten rid of small pox by just 
vaccinating around outbreaks...not by vaccinating enough people for herd 
immunity.


Brent

Bill Gates has picked 7 vaccines that he thinks are most promising and 
is spending several billion dollars to make 7 factories to mass 
produce them with the full knowledge that most of the factories will 
be unused and most of the money will end up being wasted because he is 
willing to trade money for time because every day you save in finding 
a vaccine you save thousands of lives.  But it's not enough, we need 
at least 50 factories, if 49 are never used that's OK, it would be 
money well spent as far as I'm concerned.


John K Clark
--
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/CAJPayv3pM2LDEqf2XPKWcJOCg1ntHDRvfTBAOONp3tm2svdm0w%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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/725d3d41-61e8-57e6-7be6-c7d9345eefb0%40verizon.net.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[ronaldheld]

I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics 
I have learned.
 Ronald

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4309f23a-381a-4a62-8d28-fa3dbeedfbf4%40googlegroups.com.

Vaccines

[John Clark]

The average vaccine takes 10.7 years to go from an idea to something the
average person can get, the fastest one was the Ebola vaccine and it took 5
years. That's way too slow. It takes such a long time because before
clinical trials start an experimental vaccine only has a 6% chance of ever
reaching the market; even if it gets to the clinical trials stage there is
only a 33% chance of success. But a COVID-19 vaccine is so important we
can't proceed with doing business the usual way, we need a massive
Manhattan Project style effort. About 100 different vaccines are some stage
of development and at least half of them should be aggressively pursued in
parallel. And we should definitely use human challenge trials, some will
say that's immoral but I think the moral path is the one that produces the
least sickness and death.

There is also the problem of scaling up, even after a good Vaccine is found
we need to make enough for 7.6 billion people. Bill Gates has picked 7
vaccines that he thinks are most promising and is spending several billion
dollars to make 7 factories to mass produce them with the full knowledge
that most of the factories will be unused and most of the money will end up
being wasted because he is willing to trade money for time because every
day you save in finding a vaccine you save thousands of lives.  But it's
not enough, we need at least 50 factories, if 49 are never used that's OK,
it would be money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3pM2LDEqf2XPKWcJOCg1ntHDRvfTBAOONp3tm2svdm0w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 May 2020, at 00:26, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> But we know though, there is no real physical theory.


In which metaphysics?

In arithmetic all universal machine already knows that there is no REAL 
physical universe, and that physics is a calculus of prediction on 
computational histories as seen from their first person points of view.

*we* might still observe a difference, in which case either Mechanism is wrong 
or we are in a second order normal simulation. But up to now, there is no 
evidence that physics is different from the physics “in the head” of the 
Universal Turing machine.

This is a progress, as this assumes only very elementary arithmetic for the 
ontology, and the standard definition for the phenomenology, (with direct 
motivation with the mechanist assumption at the meta level) and it explains 
both the quanta and the qualia, and why it looks so different (and is 
different, actually).

It is very simple. One reality (the sigma_1 arithmetical reality), and 8 points 
of view:

p   (truth)
[]p (provable, rationally believable)
[]p & p (knowable, first person)
[]p & <>t   (observable, “bettable”, first person plural)
[]p & <>t & p   (sensible, feelable, first person singular)

Those five nuances provides 8 mathematical theory, because three of them split 
along the key incompleteness difference between G1 and G1*. (Those are the 
logic of []p, which emulates all the others,including G1*, and the “1” comes 
from the limitation of the arithmetical interpretation on the sigma_1 
sentences).That is handy to distinguish quanta from qualia.

G1 = G + p-> []p for p atomic letter. (Already discover and axiomatised by 
Visser).

G1 can emulate G1*. For example, G* proves A iff G prove the conjunction of the 
refection of the boxed sub-formula of A. (The reflection of p is the formula 
[]p -> p). It is a form of “YD”: G* believes (about the machine, not about 
itself) that the machine survives if all its subpart “survives”, somehow. (The 
arithmetical interpretation of p is always limited

G1* proves the equivalence of all the modalities above, but G1 does not prove 
most of them.

It is a complete (at the propositional level) theology valid for all 
self-rerefntially correct machine believing in “enough induction” axiom, and it 
is testable, by comparing the physical theories related to the “observable” 
with Nature.

I recall that a machine is universal if it p -> []p (for all p sigma_1) is true 
for that machine. That is the case for RA.
A machine is by definition Löbian (or Gödel-Löbian) if it proves p -> []p (for 
all p sigma_1).

That theology is complete for all their effective consistent extensions.

But this becomes as undecidable as it could logically be at the first oder 
modal logical level. qG is PI_2 complete, and qG* is PI_1 complete in the 
oracle of truth (!). In this theology, The One is overwhelmed by the Noùs! It 
is quite Poitinian, as Matter is brought by the Soul at the place where God 
loses control, to talk poetically (perhaps).

Wolfram is not bad in some part of c computer science, but I am not sure he is 
serious about “new science” or in metaphysics.

With mechanism, Gödel-Löb-Solovay (G*) solves the mind-body problem in a 
testable way, as the physics is given by some modalities above, and that can be 
tested.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> My primary difficulty with this is not that this is a possibly useful 
> math-method, but that I have little physical sense of what this means. As 
> some combinatorics or paths or states this may have some utility, but this to 
> me is not terribly much a real physical theory.
> 
> LC
> 
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:13:05 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace 
> 
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/ 
> 
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute of 
> Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
> 
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating.” 
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>  
> 
> 
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
> 
> 
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> 

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> In any case though, I don't see the form of the Born rule as something 
> problematic.  It's getting from counting branches to probabilities.  Once 
> you assume there is a probability measure, you're pretty much forced to the 
> Born rule as the only consistent probability measure.
>
> Brent
>
>
 

Once one approaches the domain of 'quantum phenomena' as a 
probability/measure theorist would do, then all roads (formulations of the 
underlying measure space) should lead to Born.

A measure theory on the appropriately-defined measure space underlies both 
probability theory and what has been called quantum-probability theory.

*Schwinger’s picture of Quantum Mechanics*
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.09326.pdf

*A gentle introduction to Schwinger’s formulation of quantum mechanics: The 
groupoid picture*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325907723_A_gentle_introduction_to_Schwinger's_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics_The_groupoid_picture

*Quantum measures and the coevent interpretation*
https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2242

cf.

*Probabilities on Algebraic Structures*
Ulf Grenander
review: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.aoms/1177700302

*Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation 
in Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum mechanics*
J.H.Field
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0653

*Feynman’s path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is based on the 
following two postulates* [11]:

*1. If an ideal measurement is performed to determine whether a particle 
has a path lying in a region of spacetime, the probability that the result 
will be affirmative is the absolute square of a sum of complex 
contributions, one from each path in the region.*
*2. II The paths contribute equally in magnitude but the phase of their 
contribution is the classical action (in units of ¯h) i.e. the time 
integral  along the path.*

[11] Feynman R.P. 1948 Rev. Mod. Phys. 20 367.



@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79de99c0-727c-48c0-87dc-e0fb9dfe0c00%40googlegroups.com.