Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding altogether fermions and bosons is plain wrong. Best
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:30:03 -0800> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi> From: marc.geddes.domain.name.hidden> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden> > > > > On Nov 23, 1:10 am, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden.ac.be> wrote:> > >> > Now such work raises the remark, which I don't really want to develop> > now, which is that qualifiying "TOE" a theory explaining "only" forces> > and particles or field, is implicit physicalism, and we know (by UDA)> > that this is incompatible with comp.> > Yes indeed Bruno. 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 physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the> (probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to physical> substances and properties. Thus we both are in agreement on this, but> for different reasons (you because, you think math is the ultimate> basis of everything aka COMP, me, because of my property dualism, aka> the need for a triple-aspect explanation of physical/teleological/> mathematical properties as the basis for everything).> > We keep telling mainstream scients, but mainstream scients are not> listening to us. *sigh*.> > > Yet I bet Lisi is quite close to the sort of physics derivable by> > machine's or number's introspection. Actually, getting physics from so> > "few" symmetries is a bit weird (I have to study the paper in detail).> > With comp, we have to explain the symmetries *and* the geometry, and> > the quantum logic, from the numbers and their possible stable> > discourses ... If not, it is not a theory of everything, but just a> > classification, a bit like the Mendeleev table classifies atoms without> > really explaining. But Lisi's theory seems beautiful indeed ...> >> > Bruno> >> > > There's too many people mucking around with physics - I do wish more> people were working on computer science. Physics is the most advanced> of our sciences, but computer science lags behind. It just seems to> be an unfortunate historical accident that physical theories developed> first and then lots of social status got attached to theoretical> physics (stemming from the glorification of Newton in Europe).> > As a result, physics has advanced well ahead of comp-sci, and there's> lots of money and status attached to physics breakthroughs. But comp-> sci is actually far more important to us in practical sense -> artificial general intelligence would be way way more valuable than> any fundamental physics breakthrough. We would have had real AGI long> ago if there was the same money and glory for comp-sci as there is for> physics *sigh*.> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
Tecnología, moda, motor, viajes,…suscríbete a nuestros boletines para estar a la última
http://newsletters.msn.com/hm/maintenanceeses.asp?L=ES&C=ES&P=WCMaintenance&Brand=WL&RU=http%3a%2f%2fmail.live.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Nov 23 2007 - 03:33:38 PST