Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 2:59:30 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > > >> > I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might > have to send me the paper with this development. > > > I will do that. > > > > The

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 00:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/10/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> How could a derivation of physics have nothing to do with physics? You are >> right, physics describes some reality through number relation (like F = ma, >> F =

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and >> events. > > > I

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:25, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:15:55 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift > > wrote: >> >>

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

"I am not particularly given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though." - LC What tbeory of theoretical physics today (GR, QM, ...) *cannot be replicated* as (simulation) programs running on supercomputers (like the ones at universities and national labs)? What is a single example in

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

On 8/10/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How could a derivation of physics have nothing to do with physics? You are right, physics describes some reality through number relation (like F = ma,  F = GmM/r^2, …), but with Mechanism, those physical (ov-bservable, locally predictable) number

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects > and events. > > > > I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:15:55 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/ > : > > Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 8 Aug 2020, at 12:56, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > This is the view of the physicist as a kind of religious mystic, who > contemplates a physics outside of language, and some "truth" out there they > will never find. > > But all there is to write/speak with is language, > > e.g. >

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and > events. I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with the scientific method, it might be better to not postulate objects and

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 17:53, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything >> is not that valuable. > > >

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift wrote: > > https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/ > > > : > > Q.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

This is the view of the physicist as a kind of religious mystic, who contemplates a physics outside of language, and some "truth" out there they will never find. But all there is to write/speak with is language, e.g. R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and events. If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science that is fine, but it in of itself does not give physics. Feynman made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip interesting

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/ > : > > Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models? > > A. Two global Wolfram model states are

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > That might be, but a programming language that has no context with > anything is not that valuable. > > > > At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything > is not that valuable. At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that language is based. A language per se is not enough. > At

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

gmail.com > wrote: > > (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?) > https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/ > > <https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-fo

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/ : Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models? A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they share a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements. LC On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a programmer's manual. *Wolfram Physics Project Functions* https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page *Hands-On Introduction to

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

n Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> >>> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?) >>> >>> >>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?) >> >> >> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/ >> Formal Correspondences betwee

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

e ?) > > > https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/ > Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model > > cf. > > https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

> On 5 Aug 2020, at 20:17, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?) > > https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/ > Formal Correspondences between

Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

(HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?) https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/ Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model cf. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07

Re: Mathematics is Physics

been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’ It is a typical explanation based on natural selection that you meet quite often nowadays. It is also similar to what was written in the paper on mathematics and physics. Yet, to prove it one must assume that natural selection can select

Re: Mathematics is Physics

That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but if you what to prove it, you must invest more time. This is for example how Fodor describes

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/25/2015 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but if you what to prove it, you must invest more time.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 23 Aug 2015, at 09:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 07:27:46PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I

Re: Mathematics is Physics

Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the

Re: Mathematics is Physics

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings Evgenii Am Mittwoch, 19. August 2015 02:18:00 UTC+2 schrieb Brent: I like Wenmackers essay too.

R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

I forgot to mention Carlo Rovelli here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.1v1.pdf Messaggio originale Da: everything-list@googlegroups.com Data: 19/08/2015 8.40 A: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ogg: R: Re: Mathematics is Physics See also Arnold here http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg

R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

See also Arnold here http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html Messaggio originale Da: meeke...@verizon.net Data: 19/08/2015 2.17 A: undisclosed-recipients:; Ogg: Re: Mathematics is Physics I like Wenmackers essay too. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files

Re: Mathematics is Physics

I like Wenmackers essay too. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf Brent On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770 (reverse of Tegmark) cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/ - pt -- You received this