rafael jimenez buendia skrev:
Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding
altogether fermions and bosons is plain wrong. Best
What is wrong with adding fermions and bosons together? Xiao-Gang Wen
is working with a condensed string-net where the waves behave just like
bosons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that everything is reducible to physical substances and
properties. And I think that all of physics is reducible to pure
mathematics...
You can't have it both ways. If ph
George, you can do that indeed, but then you are particularizing
things. This can be helpful from a pedagogical point of view, but the
advantage of the axiomatic approach (to a knowledge theory) is that
once you agree on the axioms and rules, then you agree on the
consequences independently of
Le 26-nov.-07, à 04:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>>
>>
>>
>>> As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
>>> geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
>>> of
Bruno
Yes I am particularizing things... But "the end justifies the means". I
am being positivist, trying to express these rules as a function of an
observer. In any case, once the specific example is worked out, we can
fall back on the general case.
Your feedback about "exist" not really being
Listers, (Bruno, Torgny, et al.):
some (lay) remarks from another mindset (maybe I completely miss your
points - perhaps even my own ones).
I go with Bruno in a lack of clear understanding what "physical world"
may be. It can be extended into entirely mathematical ideas beside the
likable assumpt
Could we have a stop to HTML-only postings please! These are hard to read.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:51:36AM +0100, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathem
In his article, "Investigations into the Doomsday Argument", Nick
Bostrom introduces the Doomsday Argument with the following example:
<< Imagine that two big urns are put in front of you, and you know
that one of them contains ten balls and the other a million, but you
are ignorant as to which i
>When I talk about "pure mathematics" I mean that kind of mathematics you have
>in GameOfLife. There you have "gliders" that move in the GameOfLife-universe,
>and these gliders interact with eachother when they meet. These gliders you
>can see as physical objects. These physical objects are
On Nov 27, 3:54 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Besides which, mathematics and physics are dealing with quite
> > different distinctions. It is a 'type error' it try to reduce or
> > identity one with the other.
>
> I don't see why.
Physics deals with symmetries, forces and
10 matches
Mail list logo
