- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:51:13 +0100

Le 05-mars-08, à 04:15, Brian Tenneson a écrit :

*>
*

*> I'm trying to strike up a discussion of the MUH but my discussion
*

*> started at sci.logic and apparently, not many logicians are interested
*

*> in Physics, or something... :P
*

Logicians are not interested in physics, and still less in metaphysics.

Bruno Poizat (a french logician) said (in its textbook on Model Theory)

that metaphysics is what logicians hate the most. I think this is just

a result of contingent historical facts ...

And physicists have been cooled down by the logicians reaction on

Penrose's use of Godel's theorem, so that they are a bit inhibited.

Even in the field of quantum computation, which has to bring back

eventually logicians and physicists around the table, big

misunderstandings still occur.

*>
*

*> Here is a link (two, actually) to the discussion. I don't know how to
*

*> proceed, to discuss here or there. It does not matter to me.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> http://groups.google.sh/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/
*

*> b0ed9baa707749ad/ef7752e4bcfc2631#ef7752e4bcfc2631
*

We have discussed this a lot on this list. I don't know if most people

have seen my point, but I can only sum up it here:

I think the physical world cannot be a mathematical structure among

others, but that physics-matter is more like a sort of border of

mathematics-mind. So the relation between math and physics are more

subtle than Tegmark seem to think. You can see this once you take

seriously the mind body problem (or the problem of relating machine's

first person talk and machine third person observations, provably so (I

think) once you assume some precise version of the computationalist

hypothesis. But Tegmark is right for its mathematicalist position.

Again: right with respect to the comp hyp.

To tackle the math of that "physical bord", I use the Godel Lob Solovay

modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL). More on this list or in

my url. You can make your point of course, or ask questions. Sometimes

but rarely, Tegmark does send a post. Try a specific question perhaps,

or consult the archive.

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.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 Wed Mar 05 2008 - 09:51:52 PST

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:51:13 +0100

Le 05-mars-08, à 04:15, Brian Tenneson a écrit :

Logicians are not interested in physics, and still less in metaphysics.

Bruno Poizat (a french logician) said (in its textbook on Model Theory)

that metaphysics is what logicians hate the most. I think this is just

a result of contingent historical facts ...

And physicists have been cooled down by the logicians reaction on

Penrose's use of Godel's theorem, so that they are a bit inhibited.

Even in the field of quantum computation, which has to bring back

eventually logicians and physicists around the table, big

misunderstandings still occur.

We have discussed this a lot on this list. I don't know if most people

have seen my point, but I can only sum up it here:

I think the physical world cannot be a mathematical structure among

others, but that physics-matter is more like a sort of border of

mathematics-mind. So the relation between math and physics are more

subtle than Tegmark seem to think. You can see this once you take

seriously the mind body problem (or the problem of relating machine's

first person talk and machine third person observations, provably so (I

think) once you assume some precise version of the computationalist

hypothesis. But Tegmark is right for its mathematicalist position.

Again: right with respect to the comp hyp.

To tackle the math of that "physical bord", I use the Godel Lob Solovay

modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL). More on this list or in

my url. You can make your point of course, or ask questions. Sometimes

but rarely, Tegmark does send a post. Try a specific question perhaps,

or consult the archive.

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.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 Wed Mar 05 2008 - 09:51:52 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*