Forcing as a computational process

> On forcing and quantum gravity: > https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Kr%C3%B3l%2C+J Also: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02667 @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Forcing as a computational process

On forcing and quantum gravity: https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Kr%C3%B3l%2C+J @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

Forcing as a computational process

An alternative to (set theoretic) https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00418 Forcing as a computational process is (type theoretic) http://guilhem.jaber.fr/ComputationalInterpretationForcingTypeTheory.pdf A Computational Interpretation of Forcing in Type Theory -- You received this message because you

Russell Brand interviews Prof. Philip Goff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsExIj7PQ6U @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.

Re: Forcing as a computational process

df> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/dialectical-programming/ @philipthrift On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 5:02:42 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 6:48:08 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.004

Forcing as a computational process

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00418 [Submitted on 1 Jul 2020] *Forcing as a computational process* Joel David Hamkins , Russell Miller , Kameryn J. Williams

The graviton and the pendulum

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/tiny-pendulum-may-reveal-gravitys-secrets/ @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

On science, philosophy, & religion

by Forbes physics writer (it is a bit odd Forbes has a regular physics columnist): https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/30/no-science-will-never-make-philosophy-or-religion-obsolete/ @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: The size of the universe

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5 Philip Thrift wrote: > On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 4:58:54 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > >> >> So I still don't know what your point is. You just repeat sections of the >> website...which is interesting. But so what? Can

Re: The size of the universe

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 4:58:54 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2020 2:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 4:12:22 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/27/2020 1:32 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> > > /

Re: The size of the universe

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 4:58:54 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > So I still don't know what your point is. You just repeat sections of the > website...which is interesting. But so what? Can you not state your point > clearly and explicitly? > > Brent > > You posted a link in a previous

Re: The size of the universe

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 4:12:22 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2020 1:32 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > In any case, teleportation in quantum computers gives a better picture of > the phenomenon. > > > https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/programming-q

Re: The size of the universe

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2020 12:54 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 2:34:58 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/27/2020 11:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >

Re: The size of the universe

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 2:34:58 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2020 11:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > >> The instantaneous correlations of > >> quantum entanglement cannot be used to > >> transmit information because the result >

Re: The size of the universe

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/programming-quantum-computers/9781492039679/ch04.html "In this chapter we introduce a QPU program allowing us to immediately teleport an object across a distance of 3.1 millimeters! The same code would work over interstellar distances, given the right

Re: The size of the universe

>The instantaneous correlations of > quantum entanglement cannot be used to > transmit information because the result > at each end is random. > Brent Correlation: the resuls at the two ends are stochastcally *dependent* not the results at the two ends are stochastcally independent.

On Quine

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Jun 2020, at 11:01, Philip Thrift https://groups.google.com/>> wrote: On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 1:37:31 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 26 Jun 2020, at 00:32, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > There isn't much more that's been said about th

Re: The size of the universe

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:19:08 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251302 > > Brent > Interesting. *As a consequence, this theory propagates information instantaneously everywhere in space-time. This is not surprising as causality in a

Re: subjective experience

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 1:37:31 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Jun 2020, at 00:32, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > > > > There isn't much more that's been said about the (underdeterminative) > nature of theories beyond what Duhem

Re: subjective experience

There isn't much more that's been said about the (underdeterminative) nature of theories beyond what Duhem, Quine said decades ago. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

"Physics Built by Alien Intelligences"

"Physics Built by Alien Intelligences" https://twitter.com/wolframphysics/status/1276213528349859841 Wolfram reveals his meetings with ETs? @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: subjective experience

> Explanations" are a dime dozen. > > > > Prediction is the gold standard. > Brent Though "predictions are overvalued": http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html (They do not determine theories.) @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are

Re: Science of Logic (Hegel)

Hegel is in a sort of reappraisal. Hegel & Wittgenstein https://www.academia.edu/36870201/Forms_of_Thought_Forms_of_Life_Hegel_and_WIttgenstein @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: Science of Logic (Hegel)

Jun 2020, at 08:31, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > > As "digestably" presented on nLab: > > > > https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic > > > That is very vast, and assumed a good knowledge of category theory. There > are many in

Science of Logic (Hegel)

As "digestably" presented on nLab: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic @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

Arithmetic potentialism and the universal algorithm

Via https://twitter.com/JDHamkins/status/1272615229403398144 : Joel David Hamkins, “Arithmetic potentialism and the universal algorithm,” arxiv: 1801.04599, available at http://jdh.hamkins.org/arithmetic-potentialism-and-the-universal-algorithm "Please feel free to skip over the more

Re: Is functionalism/computationalism unfalsifiable?

On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 2:45:53 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > true=/=real. > > > (Venn diagram) ~real ∩ true = ? @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 5:26:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jun 2020, at 15:00, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > > *How In The Penrose-Hameroff Paradigm The Forms of Space-time Curvatures > Can Be Connected With The Eternal Platonic Ideas

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 3:45:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jun 2020, at 11:52, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 4:43:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> So when I say that a number can think, observe,

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 4:43:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > So when I say that a number can think, observe, or even just be (Turing) > universal, it is always a short manner to say that relatively to some > “base” phi_i, that number belongs to a (true) relation making it mirroring

Re: Zombie (programming language)

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_recursive_function>. https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Ackermann_function @philipthrift On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 5:31:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > What does "general recursion" mean? Is recursion in LISP not "general"? >

TSC 2020 (online)

https://consciousness.arizona.edu/about-conference @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

Zombie (programming language)

*We propose a full-spectrum dependently typed programming language, Zombie, which supports general recursion natively. ... Zombie also features an optional termination-checker, allowing nonterminating programs returning proofs as well as external proofs about programs.* Vilhelm Sjöberg -

Information Closure Theory of Consciousness

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.13045 Information Closure Theory of Consciousness Acer Y.C. Chang , Martin Biehl , Yen Yu

Re: Is functionalism/computationalism unfalsifiable?

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 2:15:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/9/2020 10:08 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > For the present discussion/question, I want to ignore the testable > > implications of computationalism on physical law, and instead focus on > > the following idea: > > > > "How

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 1:51:32 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:46:34 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 10:25:41 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:42:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:42:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/8/2020 2:24 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >&

A tour of "machine" mathematics

The slides pdf: http://www.cs.ru.nl/~herman/revolution.pdf is a nice historical tour of "proof-assistant"-programming with some nice photos, and this historical tidbit: *AUTOMATH* N.G. de Bruijn (1967) a language to encode mathematics fully formally https://www.win.tue.nl/automath/

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG >> >

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html : Predictions are overrated

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:01 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > >> Yes, and Superdeterminism is swiftly discarded for a very good reason. >>> Occam's razor says the best physics theory that explains th

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:56:04 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 6:25 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > *Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of >> quantum foundations.* > > > Yes, and Superdeterminism is

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 5:16:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > But collapsing or not remains relevant, to make sense of the behaviour of > single particle, or more generally to get some meaning of the relative > probabilities, experimentally, or in arithmetic. > > Bruno > There

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:48:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/6/2020 5:13 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:10:

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

As for Hossenfelder's fav quantum mechanics semantics, she has stated many times on her blog, it's superdeterminism. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462 "A superdeterministic theory is one which violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of hidden variables are

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:10:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Jun 2020, at 23:36, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > ref (article by Jim Baggott): > > > https://medium.com/@MassimoPigliucci/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1 > > &

The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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 a

Re: Generalized Physics-Informed Learning Through Language-Wide Differentiable Programming

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 1:24:25 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 12:47:41 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/2/2020 11:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> "an infrastructure for incorporatin

Re: Generalized Physics-Informed Learning Through Language-Wide Differentiable Programming

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 12:47:41 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/2/2020 11:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > "an infrastructure for incorporating deep learning into existing > scientific computing code through Differentiable Programming (∂P)" >

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

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 2:47:24 PM UTC-5, Brent 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

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

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: >>> >>> >&

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

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)

Generalized Physics-Informed Learning Through Language-Wide Differentiable Programming

"an infrastructure for incorporating deep learning into existing scientific computing code through Differentiable Programming (∂P)" "a ∂P system that is able to take gradients of full Julia programs, making Automatic Differentiation a first class language feature" *Generalized Physics-Informed

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

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 < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/1/2020 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Brent

Infinity is a theism, and Doron Zeilberger is an atheist.

Interview with Doron Zeilberger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNYRUUkuhuo @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

Francesca Vidotto on quantum gravity

and her new book with Carlo Rovelli: https://daily.jstor.org/francesca-vidotto-the-quantum-properties-of-space-time/ "My philosophical background was also informed by the feminist philosophy of sciences. Feminist philosophers have been debating how you can have a notion of objectivity while

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

*we will still need an infinity of axioms to get the internal phenomenologies, including the stable measurable sharable quanta appearances, and the non sharable first person singular qualia experiences* or *Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the

Re: Max Tegmark: AI discovers physics

ce Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> https://www.facebook.com/461616050561921/posts/3107668729289960/ >> >> >> We just posted a new AI paper on how to automatically discover laws of >> physics

Max Tegmark: AI discovers physics

https://www.facebook.com/461616050561921/posts/3107668729289960/ We just posted a new AI paper on how to automatically discover laws of physics from raw video with machine learning. For example, we feed in the video below of a rocket moving in a circles in a magnetic field, seen through a

Julia plane geometry

"in the future, kids won't need to learn to do (at least) plane geometry with pencil and paper any more. Their homework will be writing codes so their computer [image: Robot face] will do the mathematics for them." https://newptcai.github.io/PlaneGeometry.jl/ based on

Some Python physics

https://www.philipzucker.com/a-smattering-of-physics-in-sympy/ cf. Automatic translation of LaTeX-encoded math into SymPy/Python code. https://docs.sympy.org/latest/modules/parsing.html : Experimental LaTeX Parsing LaTeX parsing was ported from latex2sympy (

The absurdity of nature ... and science

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-validation-in-a-world-without-meaning/ @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

The life of a programing linguist

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/x.png @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

Re: The size of the universe

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 5:59:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 May 2020, at 21:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > Recently you have said that your theory is consistent with finitism, > > > > It has always been a finitism. Judson

Re: The size of the universe

On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 6:37:20 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > I would think that ultrafinitism would change COMP's > predictions, and in a sense be incompatibe with it. Some programs will > not exist, because one would need to wait too long for them to be > executed by the UD.

Models as Code (Differentiable Programming)

Models as Code: Differentiable Programming with Zygote (Julia programming language) video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv3d0k7wWHk slides: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2019/06/Models-as-Code-Differentiable-Programming-with-Zygote-slides.pdf Zygote:

"magic" (in programming)

The term "magic" implies that the hidden complexity is at least in principle understandable, in contrast to black magic and deep magic (see Variants ), which describe arcane techniques that are deliberately hidden or extremely

"Shape" of the universe

*Would traveling out in a "straight" line bring you back to where you started?* https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/19/would-a-long-journey-through-the-universe-bring-us-back-to-our-starting-point/#1781c2ccf6c5 In the writer's (Ethan Siegel's) *opinion*: On a cosmic scale,

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 May 2020, at 21:12, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip T

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:27:34 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > >> > Probability and statistics are in part an empirical subject. This is not > pure mathematics, and it is one reason why there is no single foundation. > It would be as if linear algebra or any area of mathematics had

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > However, all this talk of probability theory may itself be wrong. Quantum > mechanics derives probabilities or distributions or spectra, but it really > is a theory of amplitudes or the density matrix. The

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say >> this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > This is true! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files > > "Magic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(parano

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

> "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 + Witch

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 UT

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

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

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

his 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 Sys

Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

*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

Re: A groupoid measure-theoretic formulation of QM

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:09:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 7:20:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 May 2020, at 13:45, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >&g

Re: A groupoid measure-theoretic formulation of QM

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 7:20:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 May 2020, at 13:45, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > > cf. > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325907723_A_gentle_introduction_to_Schwinger's_formulation_of_quant

A groupoid measure-theoretic formulation of QM

cf. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325907723_A_gentle_introduction_to_Schwinger's_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics_The_groupoid_picture *Schwinger’s picture of Quantum Mechanics* https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.09326.pdf *In this paper we will present the main features of what can

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Physicists nowadays assumes much more, like ZFC, to get a base in all > Hilbert space, for example. > > Bruno > > > But in a real operational sense, that is not the case. There is nothing in theoretical physics that

Re: EinsteinPy

ut for > > Python in my EcoLab platform, which I use for ALife research. It'll > > probably have a to wait a few years until I "retire", though, and I > > hope that the scientific community hasn't jumped on another > > bandwagon by that time :). > > > &g

EinsteinPy

Latest release: https://twitter.com/EinsteinPy/status/1257452756413165568 @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

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:47:41 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell > a écrit : > >> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: >>>

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: >> >> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: >> > The SSH >> > >> > https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 >> > >> > still lies in the "information turn&quo

What does "physical" mean?

https://www.academia.edu/38245741/What_does_physical_mean_A_prolegomenon_to_panpsychism What does “physical” mean? A prolegomenon to panpsychism Galen Strawson 2021, forthcoming - Mind and Being [1] What does the word ‘physical’

Re: The Wolfram Model

Have Goldstone bosons been *experimentally verified* to exist? @philipthrift On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:20:04 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there > is this complaint against the Wolfram Model

Re: The Wolfram Model

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote: > > > I am a physicist. Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions > does his model make,and can it be falsified? > Ronald > n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote: >&g

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

The SSH https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(*it from qubit*, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of materialist* physics - particles,

Re: The Wolfram Model

50 years from now maybe the Wolfram Model will be canonical. Likely not. @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

Re: The Wolfram Model

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 9:35:28 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:43 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > *You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of >> physics - which will lead to its unification - leaving behind

Re: The Wolfram Model

nteresting and/or useful. @philipthrift On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:48:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model* > Jonathan Gorard > > One intuitive interpretation of the evolution of a multiway system for a > non-c

Re: The Wolfram Model

trajectory of a quantum system is taken to be described by a sum (or, more properly, a functional integral) over all possible trajectories, weighted by their respective amplitudes. @philipthrift On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > I roughly see how

Re: The Wolfram Model

for classical relativistic and gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will entail. @philipthrift On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of > p

Re: How math is ruining physics

the scope of experiment and observation. So now > extending theories means going beyond what's testable; i.e. speculation. > > Brent > > On 4/29/2020 1:10 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Over the past few decades there is an explosion of people who think the > "m

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >