Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 14 September 2014 10:32, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote: > > Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably > collapse - etc. > > The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite > dimensional. > Of course, but Newtonian physics makes

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > > > It's not really that profound methinks, though I enjoy greatly your > detailing of the fascinating love/hate between Gus and Arnie. Actually they > were a couple of Jewish intellectuals competing with each other in the way > that Jewish inte

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

Thanks Brent. If you could prove it would be impossible to formulate a quantum theory without continuous values and probabilities, that would be ironic. Terren On Sep 13, 2014 12:05 PM, "meekerdb" wrote: > On 9/13/2014 6:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, "meekerdb" wro

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

> On 13 Sep 2014, at 4:57 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy >> wrote: >> >> Zero, even though they were all superstars and doing quite well for >> themselves. Sure, there are examples of great selflessness in the name

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote: Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably collapse - etc. The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite dimensional. But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would imagine most mathematical universes woul

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably collapse - etc. But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would imagine most mathematical universes wouldn't support life though. On 13 September 2014 17:49, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > > On

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 9/13/2014 6:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, "meekerdb" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > > Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although I'm not sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that. Quantum physics, as we've formulated

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, "meekerdb" wrote: > > Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although I'm not sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that. Quantum physics, as we've formulated it depends on a continuum. Brent, Can you elaborate on why qm depends on a co

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreaso

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably >> effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics, >> non-relativistic

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 13 September 2014 05:48, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've read both and I don't think Max is/has pursued the rabbit hole of > implications of possible comp as far or as thorough as Bruno. > I agree. I just stuck with Max because his version is more straightforw

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb > wrote: One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics, non-relativistic quantum mechanics, a

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Zero, even though they were all superstars and doing quite well for > themselves. Sure, there are examples of great selflessness in the name of > stepping forward together too, but this is rather excep

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:23 AM, LizR wrote: > On 12 September 2014 17:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Liz, >> As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis >> with nothing theoretical to back it up. >> > > I'm not sure about that. He does go on about properties we'd ex

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 12 Sep 2014, at 07:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: Liz, As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis with nothing theoretical to back it up. One aspect of his hypothesis is that the creation of matter requires math that is both consistent and complete. Whereas Godel

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 12 Sep 2014, at 04:19, meekerdb wrote: On 9/11/2014 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take me a while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion. Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate mathematically (a

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 12 Sep 2014, at 03:36, LizR wrote: Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take me a while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion. Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate mathematically (adverb), but cannot be claimed to 'be' t

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

the process." From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 10:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure How come you're deeply impoverishe

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 12 September 2014 17:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Liz, > As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis > with nothing theoretical to back it up. > I'm not sure about that. He does go on about properties we'd expect the universe to have (I think that runs into a measur

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb wrote: > > One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably > effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics, > non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and other theories which we now think > were mere approximations. This se

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

Liz, As far as I know, Max does not have a theory. He just has a hypothesis with nothing theoretical to back it up. One aspect of his hypothesis is that the creation of matter requires math that is both consistent and complete. Whereas Godel has seemingly to me proven that such math does not exist.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

On 9/11/2014 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take me a while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion. Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate mathematically (adverb), but cannot be claimed to ‘be’ t

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

Or chs 9-14 of course! (In fact I hadn't even opened your 2nd email when I wrote that...) I will do my best to have a look at the book, and if I have any sensible comments I'll get back with them. On 12 September 2014 13:36, LizR wrote: > Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, whic

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

Obviously I haven't read the PDF file with Chs 1-8, which may take me a while - but I do (mildly) take issue with this assertion. Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate mathematically (adverb), but cannot be claimed to ‘be’ the mathematics. Being predictive with/using ma

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure

How come you're deeply impoverished? The preamble indicates you should be rich, rich, rich! Sounds interesting, not that I have yet read the entire preamble (being at work and all) but it looks like both you and Thomas Kuhn are "Godelising" science itself. I must admit I lapped up Kuhn's book then

Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure

Hi , My book is finally out. Hales CG. 2014. “The Revolutions of Scientific Structure” Press release here http://www.worldscientific.com/page/pressroom/2014-07-11-01 The book is here: http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9211 The Front-Matter (preface) and preamble (Ch