Re: Some comments on The Mathematical Universe
I found a paper that might be of interest to those interested in Tegmark's work. http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0867 Abstract I discuss some problems related to extreme mathematical realism, focusing on a recently proposed shut-up-and-calculate approach to physics (arXiv:0704.0646 http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646, arXiv:0709.4024 http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024). I offer arguments for a moderate alternative, the essence of which lies in the acceptance that mathematics is (at least in part) a human construction, and discuss concrete consequences of this--at first sight purely philosophical--difference in point of view. -Brian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Some comments on The Mathematical Universe
Exercise: criticize the following papers mentioned below in the light of the discovery of the universal machine and its main consequences from incompleteness to first person indeterminacy. Think of the identity thesis. To be sure Tegmark is less wrong than Jannes. Solution: search in the archive of this list where I have already explained this, or use directly UDA, or wait for what will (perhaps) follow. I should send some of my papers on arXiv, but up to now, only logicians understand the whole trick, so I have to better appreciated what physicians don't understand in logic, before making a version free of references to mathematical logical baggage. Logicians are not interested in mind, nor really matter, and physicians are still naïve on the link consciousness/reality, I would say. To be sure Tegmark is closer than most physicists except perhaps Wheeler. Also, Tegmarks' argument for mathematicalism is invalid (even with strong non-comp axioms). But I prefer to help you to understand this by yourself through the understanding of what a universal machine is, than trying a direct argument. According of the part of UDA (or perhaps AUDA) you understand, you can already see the weakness of such direct mathematical approach. Note that comp makes physics much more fundamental, and separate it much clearly from possible geograpies. Above all comp does not eliminate the person, which Tegmark is still doing: the frog view is not yet a first person view, in the comp sense. Interesting stuff, still. Thanks for the references. Bruno On 20 Jul 2009, at 19:44, Brian Tenneson wrote: I found a paper that might be of interest to those interested in Tegmark's work. http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0867 Abstract I discuss some problems related to extreme mathematical realism, focusing on a recently proposed shut-up-and-calculate approach to physics (arXiv:0704.0646, arXiv:0709.4024). I offer arguments for a moderate alternative, the essence of which lies in the acceptance that mathematics is (at least in part) a human construction, and discuss concrete consequences of this--at first sight purely philosophical--difference in point of view. -Brian http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Some comments on The Mathematical Universe
Comments below. Bruno Marchal wrote: Exercise: criticize the following papers mentioned below in the light of the discovery of the universal machine and its main consequences from incompleteness to first person indeterminacy. Think of the identity thesis. To be sure Tegmark is less wrong than Jannes. Solution: search in the archive of this list where I have already explained this, or use directly UDA, or wait for what will (perhaps) follow. I should send some of my papers on arXiv, but up to now, only logicians understand the whole trick, so I have to better appreciated what physicians don't understand in logic, before making a version free of references to mathematical logical baggage. Logicians are not interested in mind, nor really matter, and physicians are still naïve on the link consciousness/reality, I would say. To be sure Tegmark is closer than most physicists except perhaps Wheeler. Also, Tegmarks' argument for mathematicalism is invalid (even with strong non-comp axioms). But I prefer to help you to understand this by yourself through the understanding of what a universal machine is, than trying a direct argument. *I need to get a better grasp on what a universal machine is, yes. I am interested in finding out how Tegmark's argument for mathematicalism is invalid, especially since I'm using it to motivate my research.* According of the part of UDA (or perhaps AUDA) you understand, you can already see the weakness of such direct mathematical approach. Note that comp makes physics much more fundamental, and separate it much clearly from possible geograpies. Above all comp does not eliminate the person, which Tegmark is still doing: the frog view is not yet a first person view, in the comp sense. Interesting stuff, still. Thanks for the references. *I'll have to think more on Jannes' paper. As I basically resting the motivation of my research on the correctness of ERH implies MUH, I'm trying to formulate a good refutation to his paper.* --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Some comments on The Mathematical Universe
On 21 Jul 2009, at 00:22, Brian Tenneson wrote: Comments below. Bruno Marchal wrote: Exercise: criticize the following papers mentioned below in the light of the discovery of the universal machine and its main consequences from incompleteness to first person indeterminacy. Think of the identity thesis. To be sure Tegmark is less wrong than Jannes. Solution: search in the archive of this list where I have already explained this, or use directly UDA, or wait for what will (perhaps) follow. I should send some of my papers on arXiv, but up to now, only logicians understand the whole trick, so I have to better appreciated what physicians don't understand in logic, before making a version free of references to mathematical logical baggage. Logicians are not interested in mind, nor really matter, and physicians are still naïve on the link consciousness/reality, I would say. To be sure Tegmark is closer than most physicists except perhaps Wheeler. Also, Tegmarks' argument for mathematicalism is invalid (even with strong non-comp axioms). But I prefer to help you to understand this by yourself through the understanding of what a universal machine is, than trying a direct argument. I need to get a better grasp on what a universal machine is, yes. I am interested in finding out how Tegmark's argument for mathematicalism is invalid, especially since I'm using it to motivate my research. At least you are aware that a mathematicalism à-la Tegmark needs a rather sophisticated universal structure, but if we assume even very weak version of comp, the universal machine provides that structure, or that structure has to be reducible as an invariant for a set of effective transformation of that machine. We can come back on this. I may be wrong also. According of the part of UDA (or perhaps AUDA) you understand, you can already see the weakness of such direct mathematical approach. Note that comp makes physics much more fundamental, and separate it much clearly from possible geograpies. Above all comp does not eliminate the person, which Tegmark is still doing: the frog view is not yet a first person view, in the comp sense. Interesting stuff, still. Thanks for the references. I'll have to think more on Jannes' paper. As I basically resting the motivation of my research on the correctness of ERH implies MUH, I'm trying to formulate a good refutation to his paper. OK, nice. My main critics is that they seem not be aware of the consciousness/ reality problem. They are using an identify thesis which is not allowed by comp. The UD argument shows exactly that. It is build to show that if we keep consciousness, eventually, physics is even more fundamental than physicist imagine. The physical world(s) is(are) not just a 'sufficiently rich' part of math, it is somehow the border of the ignorance of any (Löbian) universal machine which introspects itself. This connects in some way all part 'sufficiently rich' part of math. It explains also the non communicable part of what we can be conscious of, including physical sensations (as modalities related to self-references). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Comments on The Mathematical Universe
Arxiv.org:0904.0867v1 I think the author presents some good arguments. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
