Re: The size of the universe

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:51 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 1, 2020, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:39 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:26 AM Alan Grayson 
 wrote:

> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope
>> of reality:
>> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/
>>
>> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are
>> largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It 
>> covers
>> many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation,
>> string theory, and mathematical realism.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> I see you agree with the MUH that there are infinite, identical
> repeats of any universe.
>

 To be clear, the MUH is separate theory from the idea of a spatially
 infinite universe (which is just the standard cosmological model that
 working cosmologists assume today, that the universe is infinite,
 homogeneous, and seeded by random quantum fluctuations occurring at all
 scales during the expansion of the universe).

>>>
>>>
>>> Define what you mean by "quantum fluctuations". There are no such things
>>> in standard quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>>
>> Variations in the decay of the inflaton field that seeded the variations
>> in density that led to stars and galaxies, and confirmed by observations by
>> COBE and Planck.
>>
>
>
> That is not how inflation models work.
>

Are you sure about that? If so could you explain the error in this or in my
understanding of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0&t=6m43s

Jason

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUishOpaFMcp-pbHZ2AY8HoYujkz5xGRED_B6hrvdLmf1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 20:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/4/2020 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 2 Jun 2020, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/2/2020 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2020, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Brent suggest that we might recover completeness by restricting N to a 
>> finite domain. That is correct, because all finite function are 
>> computable, but then, we have incompleteness directly with respect to 
>> the computable functions, even limited on finite but arbitrary domain. 
>> In fact, that moves makes the computer simply vanishing, and it makes 
>> Mechanism not even definable or expressible.
> That's going to come as a big shock to IBM stockholders.
 Why? On the contrary. IBM bets on universal machine
>>> No, they bet only on finite machines, and they will be very surprised to 
>>> hear that they have vanished.
>> They bet on finite machines … including the universal machine, which I 
>> insist is a finite machine. That is even the reason why I called it from 
>> times to times universal number.
>> 
>> I recall that once we get the phi_i,
> 
> i = 1 to inf.

That is the potential infinite, that you already need for a concept like the 
square root of 2, used all the time in elementary quantum mechanics. 
Without it, neither CT, nor YD makes any sense. We could aswell stop doing any 
math, if not stop thinking. 

The axioms that I use are just Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz).

There is no axiom of infinity, nor even induction axiom. That belongs only to 
the observers, and the proof of their existence requires only the two axiom 
above, or the arithmetic one, or anything Turing equivalent. With less than 
that, there is no computer, nor laptop … The universal machinery is potentially 
infinite. The universal machine is finite.

Bruno



> 
>> which can be defined in elementary arithmetic, we get all the universal 
>> numbers, that is all u such that there phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y), and such u 
>> can be used to define all the recursive enumeration of all digital machines.
>> 
>> The implementation of this fine but universal machines are called (physical) 
>> computer, and is the domain of expertise of IBM.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 and know well what is a computer: a finite arithmetical being in touch 
 with the infinite, and indeed, always asking for more memory, which is the 
 typical symptom of liberty/universality. IBM might be finitist, like 
 Mechanism, but is not ultrafinist at all. Anyway, mathematically, 
 Mechanism is consistent with ulrafinitsim, even if to prove this, you need 
 to go beyond finitism, (but then that’s the case for all consistent 
 theory: none can prove its own consistency once “rich enough” (= just 
 Turing universal, not “Löbian”).
 
 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.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3068f558-7f61-56cb-61fe-44832ec28a91%40verizon.net.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/87582a17-b101-aa86-0c27-cf21a663c828%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/42703C5F-F8E7-47BA-AF8C-E962FADF8553%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 20:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/4/2020 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Jun 2020, at 21:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/3/2020 3:26 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
 On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 6/2/2020 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 >> On 1 Jun 2020, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 >> > wrote: 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 >>> Brent suggest that we might recover completeness by restricting N to a 
 >>> finite domain. That is correct, because all finite function are 
 >>> computable, but then, we have incompleteness directly with respect to 
 >>> the computable functions, even limited on finite but arbitrary domain. 
 >>> In fact, that moves makes the computer simply vanishing, and it makes 
 >>> Mechanism not even definable or expressible. 
 >> That's going to come as a big shock to IBM stockholders. 
 > 
 > Why? On the contrary. IBM bets on universal machine 
 
 No, they bet only on finite machines, and they will be very surprised to 
 hear that they have vanished. 
 
 Brent 
 
 For the most part computers are meant to run various algorithms that solve 
 some restricted set of problems, say business applications. We use them 
 largely as tools.
>>> 
>>> Mathematics is largely a tool.  My pure mathematics friends over on 
>>> math-fun seem to have most of their fun on Mathematica.
>> 
>> Of course, this is close to Aristotelian theology. It assumes that there is 
>> something which is not mathematical in some reality. A platonism or a 
>> pythegaorean think that he physical universe is but a tool, invented by the 
>> numbers to figure out what happens, and what is real.
>> 
>> But once you grasp that all computations exists in arithmetic (or more 
>> exactly, that they are enabled by the arithmetical true relations), even 
>> without Mechanism, the charge are reversed. It is those who claim (in 
>> metaphysics, not in physics) that there is a primitive universe who have the 
>> task to provide evidence.
> 
> You have implicitly asserted that computation=reality.   With not proof, or 
> even evidence.

?

The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. And AUDA 
(arithmetical Dovetailer Argument) makes the proof constructive, and it makes 
Mechanism testable, and the evidences for mechanism are striking, at a place 
where we know since 1500 years that Materialism is already refuted. Oh, yes, 
that is well hidden since 1500 years, by all gnostic (atheist or non atheists).

You are the one who seems to claim the existence of an ontological physical 
universe, where there is no proof nor any evidence. Evidences for a physical 
reality is not evidences for an ontological or primitive physical reality. The 
confusion between both of those is know as Aristotle theology. The belief in 
primary matter or physicalism (mathematicalist or not).

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> I have given the way to test this, and, thanks to QM, we can say that there 
>> are not yet any evidence found for a primitive physical universe. On the 
>> contrary, nature seems to obey exactly to what is needed for mechanism to be 
>> true.
>> 
>> Then, if we assume furthermore Mechanism, there is no more choice in this 
>> matter. Physics cannot be the fundamental science, it reduces to arithmetic 
>> (or any model of any Turing equivalent machinery) “seen-from inside”. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/55f184ef-663c-1acb-af92-a9db0346c4c1%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/22C3F6D1-890C-413B-A316-3E197100196F%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 22:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:30:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Jun 2020, at 07:19, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 1:03:58 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 8:35:34 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 5:26:08 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> For the most part computers are meant to run various algorithms that solve 
>> some restricted set of problems, say business applications. We use them 
>> largely as tools.
>> 
>> LC
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All of the (usable) theories of physics invented to date can be (and are) 
>> implemented on supercomputers (like those in the Dept. Of Energy national 
>> labs).
>> 
>> Some physicists though talk as if there is a Church they must go to -- where 
>> their minds are elevated into a Platonic realm where Physics is revealed to 
>> them. 
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> I guess one might say that is what experiments do.
>> 
>> LC 
>> 
>> As I say,
>> 
>>   Physics = Math + Witchcraft.
>> 
>> (Computational Physics though is a programming domain.)
> 
> That is correct. But computational physics, like physics, cannot be the last 
> word, and the physical reality, nor the psychological reality can be 
> “entirely” computable. The universal machine is already not something totally 
> computable, only partially. 
> 
> Any theory rich enough to define what is a computer has a non computable 
> semantics.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I wrote about the Zetans
> 
>
> http://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2012/04/persons-without-infinities.html 
> 
> 
> who never imagined infinities, nor found any reason to either think of them, 
> or invent them.
> 
> They have a fine definition of computers and computing, and have found no 
> need for anything more than finite mechanism in any of their theory of 
> computing.
> 
> That we came to think "infinity" plays a role in computing (or in computing 
> theory, or in mathematics in general) is just an aspect of our own peculiar 
> psychology and history, but it is not needed.


That makes some sense. You can compute without axiom of infinity, and indeed 
you can define what is a computer just by using the two axioms Kxy = x, and 
Sxyz = xz(yz), as I have explicitly shown on this list. Similarly you can 
define a computer using only elementary arithmetic, like Gödel did implicitly 
and Kleene did explicitly. But to prove anything non trivial, you need 
induction, and to get semantics treated mathematically, you need actual 
infinity axioms, like with the notion of real numbers, etc.

To *understand* Kxy = x …, you need an axiom of infinity at the meta-level, and 
this is required by all scientist-numbers in arithmetic, so “infinity” is more 
than welcome to define the notion of observer, and for the notion of physical 
*laws*.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46bfade6-2376-4bb1-abaa-d15a7d08061do%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/A153CD38-C6CB-44C8-A595-41773F6ABA40%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/4/2020 3:39 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:07:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>> > On 2 Jun 2020, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 6/2/2020 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> >>> On 1 Jun 2020, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>  Brent suggest that we might recover completeness by restricting N to 
>> a finite domain. That is correct, because all finite function are 
>> computable, but then, we have incompleteness directly with respect to the 
>> computable functions, even limited on finite but arbitrary domain. In fact, 
>> that moves makes the computer simply vanishing, and it makes Mechanism not 
>> even definable or expressible. 
>> >>> That's going to come as a big shock to IBM stockholders. 
>> >> 
>> >> Why? On the contrary. IBM bets on universal machine 
>> > 
>> > No, they bet only on finite machines, and they will be very surprised 
>> to hear that they have vanished. 
>>
>> They bet on finite machines … including the universal machine, which I 
>> insist is a finite machine. That is even the reason why I called it from 
>> times to times universal number. 
>>
>> I recall that once we get the phi_i, which can be defined in elementary 
>> arithmetic, we get all the universal numbers, that is all u such that there 
>> phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y), and such u can be used to define all the recursive 
>> enumeration of all digital machines. 
>>
>> The implementation of this fine but universal machines are called 
>> (physical) computer, and is the domain of expertise of IBM. 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>>
> Of course any computation is going to be finite or involve a finite number 
> of bits. This happens as well with quantum computers, but there is one 
> difference. Two states can be prepared and entangled so they have a 
> continuum of probabilities depending upon measurement angle. This is what 
> separates QM from classical mechanics. 
>
>
> I've wondered about this.  Of course a lot variables in the theory are 
> continua; not just angle but also position.  Yet none of those can be 
> measured to arbitrary precision.  And the more precisely one is, the less 
> precisely it's conjugate can be...which is what separate QM from classical 
> mechanics.  Holevo's theorem limits what we can know about a state.
>
> Brent
>
>
The main thing is that QM in violating the Bell inequalities has this vast 
degree of possible outcomes that would not happen with a purely classical 
system. We might say this large number of possible outcomes are a sort of 
epistemological horizon that prevent complete knowledge of a system. A 
classical system has both configuration and momentum accessible, while a QM 
system in configuration variables is half of that, purely Lagrangian. and 
this is what Holevo's theorem tells us. The pairing of a system state and 
measurement is a form of Gödel numbering, and this is not an aspect of 
classical mechanics. 

The difficult aspect to physics is not really complicated mathematics or 
calculations. It is really in coming up with simple fundamental statements. 
I think, of course I might be in some sort of delusion, that I am finding 
ways in this direction of late. I suppose if you persist with thinking 
about this long enough this can happen.

LC


 

> This separates entanglement of spins from the Bergman's socks, where 
> knowing the left sock is in one box the right must be in the other. So 
> while there is a finitude to the entanglement entropy or the quantity of 
> quantum information, the possible ways an entanglement can register 
> outcomes is infinite. This is what gives a violation of Bell's theorem in 
> QM. With the measurement of a quantum system the pair of a state and 
> measurement forms a type of Godel numbering. This connects QM foundations 
> with the phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y),you state above.
>
> A classical computer will always be finite, and you can't have an infinite 
> Cantor diagonalization. The computers that are manufactured are done so to 
> solve certain problems, RSA encyrption, user interfaces for service 
> personnel from travel agents to sales, word processors, games, cell phone 
> signal shifters, data processors of medical measurements and on it goes. 
> Even with quantum computers this will take off, and in fact I have thought 
> quantum computing would be a way of managing a dynamics network defined by 
> millions of drones over a city. Even if as I think the Godel-Turing result 
> underlies obstructions between entanglement types quantum computers will in 
> time become the province of engineering and business applications.
>
> LC
>  
>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > Brent 
>> > 
>> >> and know well what is a computer: a finite arithmetical being in touch 

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jun 2020, at 00:39, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:07:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 2 Jun 2020, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> > > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/2/2020 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >>> On 1 Jun 2020, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >>> > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>  Brent suggest that we might recover completeness by restricting N to a 
>  finite domain. That is correct, because all finite function are 
>  computable, but then, we have incompleteness directly with respect to 
>  the computable functions, even limited on finite but arbitrary domain. 
>  In fact, that moves makes the computer simply vanishing, and it makes 
>  Mechanism not even definable or expressible. 
> >>> That's going to come as a big shock to IBM stockholders. 
> >> 
> >> Why? On the contrary. IBM bets on universal machine 
> > 
> > No, they bet only on finite machines, and they will be very surprised to 
> > hear that they have vanished. 
> 
> They bet on finite machines … including the universal machine, which I insist 
> is a finite machine. That is even the reason why I called it from times to 
> times universal number. 
> 
> I recall that once we get the phi_i, which can be defined in elementary 
> arithmetic, we get all the universal numbers, that is all u such that there 
> phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y), and such u can be used to define all the recursive 
> enumeration of all digital machines. 
> 
> The implementation of this fine but universal machines are called (physical) 
> computer, and is the domain of expertise of IBM. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> Of course any computation is going to be finite or involve a finite number of 
> bits.

Any halting computation.

Some non halting computation requires infinite time and space, virtual, 
arithmetical or physical.



> This happens as well with quantum computers, but there is one difference. Two 
> states can be prepared and entangled so they have a continuum of 
> probabilities depending upon measurement angle. This is what separates QM 
> from classical mechanics. This separates entanglement of spins from the 
> Bergman's socks, where knowing the left sock is in one box the right must be 
> in the other. So while there is a finitude to the entanglement entropy or the 
> quantity of quantum information, the possible ways an entanglement can 
> register outcomes is infinite. This is what gives a violation of Bell's 
> theorem in QM. With the measurement of a quantum system the pair of a state 
> and measurement forms a type of Godel numbering. This connects QM foundations 
> with the phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y),you state above.

OK. But you assume some quantum universe, where the UDA explains why you have 
to derive the quantum from arithmetic or (Turing) equivalent.



> 
> A classical computer will always be finite, and you can't have an infinite 
> Cantor diagonalization.

The Kleene diagonalisation is constructive. It shows the inexistence of some 
finite machine having some “arithmetical omniscience”. It requires potential 
infinities, not the cantorian infinities.



> The computers that are manufactured are done so to solve certain problems, 
> RSA encyrption, user interfaces for service personnel from travel agents to 
> sales, word processors, games, cell phone signal shifters, data processors of 
> medical measurements and on it goes.


All computers exists in arithmetic, and all computations exist in an internal 
limit of arithmetic (by step 2, actually!).

With mechanism, the physical reality is not the fundamental reality. The 
physical reality emerges from the computation executed in virtue of the number 
relations, like the prime number distribution, for example. 



> Even with quantum computers this will take off, and in fact I have thought 
> quantum computing would be a way of managing a dynamics network defined by 
> millions of drones over a city. Even if as I think the Godel-Turing result 
> underlies obstructions between entanglement types quantum computers will in 
> time become the province of engineering and business applications.

No doubt on this. It is just that with mechanism, the physical universe is not 
ontological, but more like a collective hallucination made by the relative 
universal number relations which are as true, and independent of the physical 
laws, than 117 is composite and 317 is prime.

Bruno

<<
Of this reality, as I explained […], I take a 'realistic" view. At any rate 
(and this is my main point) this realistic view is much more plausible of 
mathematical than of physical reality, because mathematical objects are so much 
more what they seem. A chair or a star is not in the least like what it seems 
to be ; the more we think of it, the fuzzier its outlines become in the haze of 
sensations which surrounds it; but '2' and '317' has nothing to do with 
sensations, and

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jun 2020, at 08:09, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/4/2020 3:39 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> 
>> Of course any computation is going to be finite or involve a finite number 
>> of bits. This happens as well with quantum computers, but there is one 
>> difference. Two states can be prepared and entangled so they have a 
>> continuum of probabilities depending upon measurement angle. This is what 
>> separates QM from classical mechanics.
> 
> I've wondered about this.  Of course a lot variables in the theory are 
> continua; not just angle but also position.  Yet none of those can be 
> measured to arbitrary precision.  And the more precisely one is, the less 
> precisely it's conjugate can be...which is what separate QM from classical 
> mechanics.  Holevo's theorem limits what we can know about a state.
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to comment here but just to re-quote Max Tegmark's dictum:
> 
> Our challenge as physicists is to discover the infinity-free equations 
> describing it—the true laws of physics.


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz).

But a degree 4 diophantine polynomial works as well. That is infinity-free. 



> 
>  
> It seems to always be needed to restate to physicists *as Vic Stenger did): 
> 
> Just because a mathematical theory someone came up with to model physical 
> stuff has property X doesn't mean that the physical stuff has property X.

That is valid. But once you bet on YD + CT, the charge are reversed, and it is 
the believer in a material or physical ontology who has to provide some 
evidences. I never found even one evidence for it. Each time people give me 
evidence, hey are easy to refute with the dream argument, especially its 
post-Turing mathematical version.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/333d163e-ee12-428f-986d-abbff87836a3o%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/7376100B-E683-4295-A9DF-1C8063A0BB50%40ulb.ac.be.

Well-roundedness and character

[John Clark]

The University of California system has permanently banned SAT and ACT test
results from being a factor in deciding who will be admitted to their
Universities. It's likely many other Universities in the US will follow
this lead. They said they did it because standardized testing is racially
biased due to the fact that rich white people can hire tutors to help their
kids score high on the tests but poor black kids can't. So from now on
admission will be based on subjective qualities like "well-roundedness" and
"character". Apparently the ability to kick a ball on a field or play water
polo in a pool or row a boat in a river shows great well-roundedness and
character.

I agree with Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson when he said:

*"As a result, admissions to the top US universities—and hence, most
chances for social advancement in the US—will henceforth be based entirely
on shifting and nebulous criteria that rich, well-connected kids and their
parents spend most of their lives figuring out, rather than merely mostly
based on such criteria. The last side door for smart nonconformist kids is
now being slammed shut."*

Aaronson says if such a polacy had been in place when he was a kid he would
have never been admitted to any university much less gone to graduate
school and
gotten a Phd.

The Collapsing Leviathan 

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/CAJPayv0SE9jNVbNW_jJ7jj_C-5Jgckdu5thPghCKS%2BJuvZQFvg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2020, at 14:05, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 4:33:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 2 Jun 2020, at 03:07, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 3:58:01 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>> Let's say time and space are continuous. Now lets design a stop watch that 
>> works as follows:
>> 
>> 1. Start button: shoots a photon with a wavelength of 300 nanometers down 
>> the length of a ruler.
>> 2. Stop button: raises the ruler so that the photon hits it at a certain 
>> point that we can measure.
>> 
>> Question: Even if space and time are continuous can this stop watch provide 
>> measurements of continuous/unlimited precision?
>> 
>> Answer: Due to the uncertainty principle, the location the photon cannot be 
>> determined to a location finer than the photon's wavelength. Accordingly, 
>> even if space/time are continuous, such a stop watch has a discrete 
>> time-resolution of (300 nanometers / speed of light ) ~= 10^-15 seconds. So 
>> for all practical purposes, there's no difference between this stop-watch 
>> 1.1 and 1.2 seconds after pressing 
>> "Start". Given this, can we be so sure that reality is continuous?
>> 
>> David Deutsch has speculated that the appearance of a continuum may be an 
>> artifact of living within an infinite ensemble of independently discrete 
>> realities. As we see a continuous variable evolve to reach some final state, 
>> it may be an increasing fraction of realities evolving to reach that state 
>> (with each one discretely changing). This would explain why a photon might 
>> seem to have an arbitrary polarization, or an electron some arbitrary 
>> fraction of spin, but when measured it only have one of two possible values.
>> 
>> In summary, I agree with you that a continuous reality rules out exact 
>> duplicates. But I would add that quantum mechanics says two regions of space 
>> can be so similar to each other that no one, and no experiment, even in 
>> theory, could tell the difference between them.
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> I don't see what measurements of similarity has to do with this issue. Fact 
>> is that if space is continuous,
> 
> That is not a fact.
> 
> The fact is you can't read plain English. Do you know what "if" means? AG
>  
> The fact is that we don’t know,
> 
> Another fact is that our best measurements are consistent with continuity. LC 
> has posted about this. AG


You don’t quote enough. My statements were not on the “if”, but what followed. 
As I have explained many time, Mechanism enforced the presence of continuity in 
physics, and even of some non computable feature of the physical reality (and 
indeed that is why digital physicalism is self-defeating: it is always wrong, 
with or without mechanism (an hypothesis in the cognitive science, not in 
physics).

Bruno 




>  
> neither with Mechanism, nor with physics which has not yet successfully 
> explain how to marry the quantum and GR.
> 
> With mechanism, the continuum comes from the necessary random oracle of the 
> first person posts of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> there cannot be any exact repetitions. And not only is position continuous, 
>> but so are other variables, which makes the case of uniqueness even 
>> stronger. And it doesn't matter whether the universe is finite or infinite 
>> in spatial extent. So from my perspective, every universe is unique 
>> (provided continuity of spatial extent exists). AG 
> 
> Better to not assume a universe, or a god, as those things are what we need 
> to explain.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:31 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of 
>> reality:
>> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ 
>> 
>> 
>> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are largely 
>> inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers many 
>> topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation, string 
>> theory, and mathematical realism.
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> You claim, 
>> "Every very finite sequence recurs an infinite number of times precisely 
>> because Pi goes on forever." Can you prove it? AG
>> 
>> "Similarly, should space go on forever then every possible finite 
>> arrangement of matter occurs in an infinite number of locations." Even in a 
>> finite universe, assuming space is infinitely divisible, this is false IMO. 
>> For example, if we live in a finite 4 dimensional hypersphere with only one 
>> particle, it can be placed in infinitely different locations and no repeats 
>> is plausible.  AG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You are right, if there are continuous variables of unlimited p

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

[John Clark]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:58 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> Some other examples: using Newton's law of gravitation, one can
> mathematically DERIVE the result that planet trajectories are conic
> sections; using mathematics one can show that Newton's equations of motion,
> Hamilton's equations of motions, and Lagrange's equations of motion are
> equivalent;*


Yes, you can prove MATHEMATICALLY that Newton and Lagrange's equations are
exactly equivalent, but more than a century ago it was proven
EXPERIMENTALLY that both those equations are equally WRONG, or at least
less correct than Einstein's equations of motion.  Perhaps someday somebody
will find equations that make predictions even better than Einstein's, but
they could not be proven to be better mathematically, they'd have to be
proven to be better experimentally.

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/CAJPayv1rOo8Fh1aMva0DyUpUhepTqgbjoDTuW2Gxh2dV20aZDg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 7:16 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:51 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 1, 2020, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:39 AM Jason Resch 
 wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:26 AM Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the
>>> scope of reality:
>>> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/
>>>
>>> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are
>>> largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It 
>>> covers
>>> many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation,
>>> string theory, and mathematical realism.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> I see you agree with the MUH that there are infinite, identical
>> repeats of any universe.
>>
>
> To be clear, the MUH is separate theory from the idea of a spatially
> infinite universe (which is just the standard cosmological model that
> working cosmologists assume today, that the universe is infinite,
> homogeneous, and seeded by random quantum fluctuations occurring at all
> scales during the expansion of the universe).
>


 Define what you mean by "quantum fluctuations". There are no such
 things in standard quantum mechanics.


>>> Variations in the decay of the inflaton field that seeded the variations
>>> in density that led to stars and galaxies, and confirmed by observations by
>>> COBE and Planck.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is not how inflation models work.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that? If so could you explain the error in this or in
> my understanding of it:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0&t=6m43s
>


You video gives an oversimplified comic-book version of inflation. If you
want to understand inflation, you have to go to a professional, expert
review, such as Bassett, Tsujikawa, and Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78:537-589
(2006). (Also in arXiv:0507632). You will see from this that density
perturbations are just Guassian random fields, put in by hand, with
parameters adjusted to fit the data. There are no intrinsic "quantum
fluctuations".

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLSsescvaBh2i-GdXOqkxApGE%2B7yGrEK8F983fkqz0_r6A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 4:47:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Jun 2020, at 22:33, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> Years ago I wrote about the *Zetans*
>
>
> http://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2012/04/persons-without-infinities.html
>
> who never imagined infinities, nor found any reason to either think of 
> them, or invent them.
>
> They have a fine definition of computers and computing, and have found no 
> need for anything more than finite mechanism in any of their theory of 
> computing.
>
> That we came to think "infinity" plays a role in computing (or in 
> computing theory, or in mathematics in general) is just an aspect of our 
> own peculiar psychology and history, but it is not needed.
>
>
>
> That makes some sense. You can compute without axiom of infinity, and 
> indeed you can define what is a computer just by using the two axioms Kxy = 
> x, and Sxyz = xz(yz), as I have explicitly shown on this list. Similarly 
> you can define a computer using only elementary arithmetic, like Gödel did 
> implicitly and Kleene did explicitly. But to prove anything non trivial, 
> you need induction, and to get semantics treated mathematically, you need 
> actual infinity axioms, like with the notion of real numbers, etc.
>
> To *understand* Kxy = x …, you need an axiom of infinity at the 
> meta-level, and this is required by all scientist-numbers in arithmetic, so 
> “infinity” is more than welcome to define the notion of observer, and for 
> the notion of physical *laws*.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
As my old post shows, the Zetans do have their Axiom of Infinity - called 
the *Axiom of Zillions*.

They are happy with their finite set of numbers, but sometimes they 
construct bigger numbers to add to the set. But they do not think there are 
numbers between the bigger numbers. There are gaps. 

There is no potential infinity since they don't think their galaxy will 
last forever.

( All this follows from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273942 )

@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/dbe74497-12f7-4743-bfbb-079602af43a6o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 4:25:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:58 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> Some other examples: using Newton's law of gravitation, one can 
>> mathematically DERIVE the result that planet trajectories are conic 
>> sections; using mathematics one can show that Newton's equations of motion, 
>> Hamilton's equations of motions, and Lagrange's equations of motion are 
>> equivalent;*
>
>
> Yes, you can prove MATHEMATICALLY that Newton and Lagrange's equations are 
> exactly equivalent, but more than a century ago it was proven 
> EXPERIMENTALLY that both those equations are equally WRONG, or at least 
> less correct than Einstein's equations of motion.  Perhaps someday somebody 
> will find equations that make predictions even better than Einstein's, but 
> they could not be proven to be better mathematically, they'd have to be 
> proven to be better experimentally.  
>
> John K Clark
>

Obviously, my comment about those equations was in the context of 
non-relativistic physics. Moreover, I gave you other examples to falsify 
your claims. No point in arguing with a dishonest person. AG 

-- 
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/f8287015-56f7-4e50-b56e-2eca6c765f19o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 5:55 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 7:16 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:51 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
 On Monday, June 1, 2020, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:39 AM Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:26 AM Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:

 I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the
 scope of reality:
 https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/

 It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are
 largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It 
 covers
 many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, 
 inflation,
 string theory, and mathematical realism.

 Jason

>>>
>>> I see you agree with the MUH that there are infinite, identical
>>> repeats of any universe.
>>>
>>
>> To be clear, the MUH is separate theory from the idea of a spatially
>> infinite universe (which is just the standard cosmological model that
>> working cosmologists assume today, that the universe is infinite,
>> homogeneous, and seeded by random quantum fluctuations occurring at all
>> scales during the expansion of the universe).
>>
>
>
> Define what you mean by "quantum fluctuations". There are no such
> things in standard quantum mechanics.
>
>
 Variations in the decay of the inflaton field that seeded the
 variations in density that led to stars and galaxies, and confirmed by
 observations by COBE and Planck.

>>>
>>>
>>> That is not how inflation models work.
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that? If so could you explain the error in this or in
>> my understanding of it:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0&t=6m43s
>>
>
>
> You video gives an oversimplified comic-book version of inflation. If you
> want to understand inflation, you have to go to a professional, expert
> review, such as Bassett, Tsujikawa, and Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78:537-589
> (2006). (Also in arXiv:0507632). You will see from this that density
> perturbations are just Guassian random fields, put in by hand, with
> parameters adjusted to fit the data. There are no intrinsic "quantum
> fluctuations".
>


According to the theory what is the source of this gaussian randomnesses?
What makes a field random if not quantum mechanics?

Jason


> Bruce
>
> --
> 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/CAFxXSLSsescvaBh2i-GdXOqkxApGE%2B7yGrEK8F983fkqz0_r6A%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/CA%2BBCJUgPTBgn%3DNWiq%2BnfNn7%2BEJfknhghbFzaoEYJka6qUjNX4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[smitra]

On 05-06-2020 18:07, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 5:55 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:


On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 7:16 PM Jason Resch 
wrote:

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:51 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Jason Resch 
wrote:

On Monday, June 1, 2020, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:39 AM Jason Resch 
wrote:

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:26 AM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the
scope of reality:
https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/

It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are
largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It
covers many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang,
inflation, string theory, and mathematical realism.

Jason

I see you agree with the MUH that there are infinite, identical
repeats of any universe.


To be clear, the MUH is separate theory from the idea of a spatially
infinite universe (which is just the standard cosmological model that
working cosmologists assume today, that the universe is infinite,
homogeneous, and seeded by random quantum fluctuations occurring at
all scales during the expansion of the universe).

Define what you mean by "quantum fluctuations". There are no such
things in standard quantum mechanics.

Variations in the decay of the inflaton field that seeded the
variations in density that led to stars and galaxies, and confirmed by
observations by COBE and Planck.

That is not how inflation models work.

Are you sure about that? If so could you explain the error in this or
in my understanding of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0&t=6m43s

You video gives an oversimplified comic-book version of inflation. If
you want to understand inflation, you have to go to a professional,
expert review, such as Bassett, Tsujikawa, and Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys.
78:537-589 (2006). (Also in arXiv:0507632). You will see from this
that density perturbations are just Guassian random fields, put in by
hand, with parameters adjusted to fit the data. There are no intrinsic
"quantum fluctuations".

According to the theory what is the source of this gaussian
randomnesses? What makes a field random if not quantum mechanics?

Jason


There obviously do exist quantum fluctuations. A down to Earth example 
is Johnson noise. Connect a sensitive voltmeter to a resistor and you'll 
detect fluctuations in the voltage. The average voltage is zero, but 
there are fluctuations due to thermal motion of the electrons. If you 
cool down the resistor these fluctuations will become smaller, but even 
at absolute zero there will still be fluctuations in the voltage. These 
fluctuations at zero temperature are what we call "quantum fluctuations" 
in physics. Now I remember an old discussion with Bruce on this list 
about this, and insisted that what I called quantum fluctuations are 
actually "thermal fluctuations at 0 K". But at 0 K the system is in the 
ground state, so it doesn't matter what you name you give to the 
fluctuations, these are purely quantum mechanical in nature, they don't 
arise from an initial randomness in the initial state.


Saibal

--
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/8dbb74432f8182d5f73eabde7188f91b%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/5/2020 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jun 2020, at 20:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 6/4/2020 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 2 Jun 2020, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 6/2/2020 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 Jun 2020, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Brent suggest that we might recover completeness by restricting N to a finite 
domain. That is correct, because all finite function are computable, but then, 
we have incompleteness directly with respect to the computable functions, even 
limited on finite but arbitrary domain. In fact, that moves makes the computer 
simply vanishing, and it makes Mechanism not even definable or expressible.

That's going to come as a big shock to IBM stockholders.

Why? On the contrary. IBM bets on universal machine

No, they bet only on finite machines, and they will be very surprised to hear 
that they have vanished.

They bet on finite machines … including the universal machine, which I insist 
is a finite machine. That is even the reason why I called it from times to 
times universal number.

I recall that once we get the phi_i,

i = 1 to inf.

That is the potential infinite,


No, you can't diagonalize on an infinity that is only potential.


that you already need for a concept like the square root of 2, used all the 
time in elementary quantum mechanics.


And in every computer...which uses on finitely many bits.


Without it, neither CT, nor YD makes any sense.


CT doesn't.  So much the worse for CT.   YD makes better sense since the 
doctor can now be sure he only needs to reproduce finitely many functions.



We could aswell stop doing any math, if not stop thinking.


At least stop imagining the supernatural.



The axioms that I use are just Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz).


But you allow rules of inference that permit inferences about the 
enumerated array of all functions.


Brent


There is no axiom of infinity, nor even induction axiom. That belongs only to 
the observers, and the proof of their existence requires only the two axiom 
above, or the arithmetic one, or anything Turing equivalent. With less than 
that, there is no computer, nor laptop … The universal machinery is potentially 
infinite. The universal machine is finite.

Bruno




which can be defined in elementary arithmetic, we get all the universal 
numbers, that is all u such that there phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y), and such u can 
be used to define all the recursive enumeration of all digital machines.

The implementation of this fine but universal machines are called (physical) 
computer, and is the domain of expertise of IBM.

Bruno




Brent


and know well what is a computer: a finite arithmetical being in touch with the 
infinite, and indeed, always asking for more memory, which is the typical 
symptom of liberty/universality. IBM might be finitist, like Mechanism, but is 
not ultrafinist at all. Anyway, mathematically, Mechanism is consistent with 
ulrafinitsim, even if to prove this, you need to go beyond finitism, (but then 
that’s the case for all consistent theory: none can prove its own consistency 
once “rich enough” (= just Turing universal, not “Löbian”).

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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3068f558-7f61-56cb-61fe-44832ec28a91%40verizon.net.


--
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/87582a17-b101-aa86-0c27-cf21a663c828%40verizon.net.



--
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/633e265d-a2d6-a08a-4dbf-5e8de7aaa100%40verizon.net.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/5/2020 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 4 Jun 2020, at 20:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 6/4/2020 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 3 Jun 2020, at 21:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 6/3/2020 3:26 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 6/2/2020 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2020, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Brent suggest that we might recover completeness by
restricting N to a finite domain. That is correct, because all
finite function are computable, but then, we have
incompleteness directly with respect to the computable
functions, even limited on finite but arbitrary domain. In
fact, that moves makes the computer simply vanishing, and it
makes Mechanism not even definable or expressible.
>> That's going to come as a big shock to IBM stockholders.
>
> Why? On the contrary. IBM bets on universal machine

No, they bet only on finite machines, and they will be very
surprised to
hear that they have vanished.

Brent


For the most part computers are meant to run various algorithms 
that solve some restricted set of problems, say business 
applications. We use them largely as tools.


Mathematics is largely a tool.  My pure mathematics friends over on 
math-fun seem to have most of their fun on Mathematica.


Of course, this is close to Aristotelian theology. It assumes that 
there is something which is not mathematical in some reality. A 
platonism or a pythegaorean think that he physical universe is but a 
tool, invented by the numbers to figure out what happens, and what 
is real.


But once you grasp that all computations exists in arithmetic (or 
more exactly, that they are enabled by the arithmetical true 
relations), even without Mechanism, the charge are reversed. It is 
those who claim (in metaphysics, not in physics) that there is a 
primitive universe who have the task to provide evidence.


You have implicitly asserted that computation=reality. With not 
proof, or even evidence.


?

The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic.


All proofs are relative to their premises.  You just assume arithmetic 
is real.


Brent

And AUDA (arithmetical Dovetailer Argument) makes the proof 
constructive, and it makes Mechanism testable, and the evidences for 
mechanism are striking, at a place where we know since 1500 years that 
Materialism is already refuted. Oh, yes, that is well hidden since 
1500 years, by all gnostic (atheist or non atheists).


You are the one who seems to claim the existence of an ontological 
physical universe, where there is no proof nor any evidence.


When I kick it, it kicks back.

Evidences for a physical reality is not evidences for an ontological 
or primitive physical reality.


Nobody said it was.  But it is evidence for physical reality.  The 
thirst for an absolute primitive is a sickness of philosophy.


Brent

The confusion between both of those is know as Aristotle theology. The 
belief in primary matter or physicalism (mathematicalist or not).






Bruno






Brent

I have given the way to test this, and, thanks to QM, we can say 
that there are not yet any evidence found for a primitive physical 
universe. On the contrary, nature seems to obey exactly to what is 
needed for mechanism to be true.


Then, if we assume furthermore Mechanism, there is no more choice in 
this matter. Physics cannot be the fundamental science, it reduces 
to arithmetic (or any model of any Turing equivalent machinery) 
“seen-from inside”.


Bruno





Brent

--
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/55f184ef-663c-1acb-af92-a9db0346c4c1%40verizon.net 
.


--
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/22C3F6D1-890C-413B-A316-3E197100196F%40ulb.ac.be 
.



--
You received this messag

quote from Hardy

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Bruno quotes:

"Of this reality, as I explained […], I take a 'realistic" view. At any 
rate (and this is my main point) this realistic view is much more 
plausible of mathematical than of physical reality, because mathematical 
objects are so much more what they seem. A chair or a star is not in the 
least like what it seems to be ; the more we think of it, the fuzzier 
its outlines become in the haze of sensations which surrounds it; but 
'2' and '317' has nothing to do with sensations, and its properties 
stand out the more clearly the more closely we scrutinize it. It may be 
that modern physics fits best in the framework of idealistic 
philosophy---I do not believe it, but there are eminent physicist who 
say so. Pure Mathematics, on the other hand, seems to me a rock on which 
all idealism founders: 317 is prime, not because we think so, or because 
our minds are shaped in one way rather than another, but because it is 
so, because mathematical is built that way."
`--- G. H. Hardy, "A Mathematician's Apology", Cambridge University 
Press, 1940 (1998)


Exactly why we should recognize that mathematics is made-up.  We 
understand it clearly because there is nothing to it except what we put in.


Brent

--
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/1924fa66-9dc0-8c03-e426-fdf77d8a97a3%40verizon.net.

The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

[Philip Thrift]

ref (article by Jim Baggott): 

  
https://medium.com/@MassimoPigliucci/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1


https://twitter.com/philipcball/status/1268950876405850112

Jim Baggott Retweeted
Philip Ball @philipcball
·
"The “collapse of the wavefunction” was never part of the Copenhagen 
interpretation because the wavefunction isn’t interpreted realistically." I 
have been trying to get this point across for ages; I really hope Jim has 
more success.

Quote Tweet

Jim Baggott @JimBaggott
 
No, the Copenhagen interpretation does not entail the collapse of the 
wavefunction. 



@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/74e1cfa7-6bd6-41c6-8c1a-dd63658789b0o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:11 AM smitra  wrote:

>
> There obviously do exist quantum fluctuations. A down to Earth example
> is Johnson noise. Connect a sensitive voltmeter to a resistor and you'll
> detect fluctuations in the voltage. The average voltage is zero, but
> there are fluctuations due to thermal motion of the electrons. If you
> cool down the resistor these fluctuations will become smaller, but even
> at absolute zero there will still be fluctuations in the voltage.



Can you point to experimental evidence of this? As far as I know, absolute
zero temperature is intrinsically unattainable.


These fluctuations at zero temperature are what we call "quantum
> fluctuations"
> in physics.



I think you are confusing the zero point energy of quantum fields with
"quantum fluctuations". The zero point energy, whatever it might be, does
not "fluctuate". "Fluctuate means change with time, and the zero point
energy is just a value, and it does not change with time -- it does not
"fluctuate".

Bruce


Now I remember an old discussion with Bruce on this list
> about this, and insisted that what I called quantum fluctuations are
> actually "thermal fluctuations at 0 K". But at 0 K the system is in the
> ground state, so it doesn't matter what you name you give to the
> fluctuations, these are purely quantum mechanical in nature, they don't
> arise from an initial randomness in the initial state.
>
> Saibal
>

-- 
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/CAFxXSLSu5yaDDk4jodX-8oUtYSj_zccLAV5sT2a6z6rzF5Zn1g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 2:08 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 5:55 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>>
>> You video gives an oversimplified comic-book version of inflation. If you
>> want to understand inflation, you have to go to a professional, expert
>> review, such as Bassett, Tsujikawa, and Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78:537-589
>> (2006). (Also in arXiv:0507632). You will see from this that density
>> perturbations are just Guassian random fields, put in by hand, with
>> parameters adjusted to fit the data. There are no intrinsic "quantum
>> fluctuations".
>>
>
>
> According to the theory what is the source of this gaussian randomnesses?
> What makes a field random if not quantum mechanics?
>

There is no theory behind this -- the gaussian "fluctuations" are just put
in by hand. There is the unspoken implication that the origin of these
fluctuations is quantum, but there is no theory for this, and, as has been
pointed out, there are no such things as "quantum fluctuations" in this
sense. Tim Maudlin has commented on this in Sabine Hossenfelder's blog:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22973357&postID=264282891971221826

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLQK32wMUUvWGkCVtuLXBy4%3D5Av5mNDyGCKHkT%2B95n1cbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 5:07:58 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:11 AM smitra > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> There obviously do exist quantum fluctuations. A down to Earth example 
>> is Johnson noise. Connect a sensitive voltmeter to a resistor and you'll 
>> detect fluctuations in the voltage. The average voltage is zero, but 
>> there are fluctuations due to thermal motion of the electrons. If you 
>> cool down the resistor these fluctuations will become smaller, but even 
>> at absolute zero there will still be fluctuations in the voltage.
>
>
>
> Can you point to experimental evidence of this? As far as I know, absolute 
> zero temperature is intrinsically unattainable.
>
>
> These fluctuations at zero temperature are what we call "quantum 
>> fluctuations" 
>> in physics.
>
>
>  
> I think you are confusing the zero point energy of quantum fields with 
> "quantum fluctuations". The zero point energy, whatever it might be, does 
> not "fluctuate". "Fluctuate means change with time, and the zero point 
> energy is just a value, and it does not change with time -- it does not 
> "fluctuate".
>

Another point worth mentioning is that when a quantum system is measured, 
we get some specific eigenvalue. And if THAT system is measured again, the 
measured value remains the same. No fluctuation. (I forget exactly why 
that's the case.). But if we measure a different system represented by the 
same wave function, the measured value changes. So the message is, again, 
that no single system fluctuates. AG 

>
> Bruce
>
>
> Now I remember an old discussion with Bruce on this list 
>> about this, and insisted that what I called quantum fluctuations are 
>> actually "thermal fluctuations at 0 K". But at 0 K the system is in the 
>> ground state, so it doesn't matter what you name you give to the 
>> fluctuations, these are purely quantum mechanical in nature, they don't 
>> arise from an initial randomness in the initial state.
>>
>> Saibal
>>
>

-- 
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/7f0292ef-ce00-4590-a761-dd2a91a690d3o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 5:07:58 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:11 AM smitra  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There obviously do exist quantum fluctuations. A down to Earth example 
>>> is Johnson noise. Connect a sensitive voltmeter to a resistor and you'll 
>>> detect fluctuations in the voltage. The average voltage is zero, but 
>>> there are fluctuations due to thermal motion of the electrons. If you 
>>> cool down the resistor these fluctuations will become smaller, but even 
>>> at absolute zero there will still be fluctuations in the voltage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you point to experimental evidence of this? As far as I know, 
>> absolute zero temperature is intrinsically unattainable.
>>
>>
>> These fluctuations at zero temperature are what we call "quantum 
>>> fluctuations" 
>>> in physics.
>>
>>
>>  
>> I think you are confusing the zero point energy of quantum fields with 
>> "quantum fluctuations". The zero point energy, whatever it might be, does 
>> not "fluctuate". "Fluctuate means change with time, and the zero point 
>> energy is just a value, and it does not change with time -- it does not 
>> "fluctuate".
>>
>
> Another point worth mentioning is that when a quantum system is measured, 
> we get some specific eigenvalue. And if THAT system is measured again, the 
> measured value remains the same. No fluctuation. (I forget exactly why 
> that's the case.). But if we measure a different system represented by the 
> same wave function, the measured value changes. So the message is, again, 
> that no single system fluctuates. AG 
>

Oh, now I recall.  After the measurement, the system's state is the 
eigenfunction of the eigenvalue measured. Previously, it was in a 
superposition of states. So when we measure that specific system again, the 
probability of measuring the same eigenvalue is unity. AG 

>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Now I remember an old discussion with Bruce on this list 
>>> about this, and insisted that what I called quantum fluctuations are 
>>> actually "thermal fluctuations at 0 K". But at 0 K the system is in the 
>>> ground state, so it doesn't matter what you name you give to the 
>>> fluctuations, these are purely quantum mechanical in nature, they don't 
>>> arise from an initial randomness in the initial state.
>>>
>>> Saibal
>>>
>>

-- 
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/04b0d598-f945-473e-9d0d-8e9c48c76b68o%40googlegroups.com.