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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:49:11 +0100

Le 05-mars-08, à 16:11, <dfzone-everything.domain.name.hidden> a écrit :

*>
*

*> Bruno Marchal wrote:
*

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

*>> Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL).
*

*>
*

*> Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory?
*

I am not sure we could ever *know* a physical law, but of course we can

believe or bet on some physical theory, and make attempt to refute it

experimentally.

(Also it is not *my *theory, but the

Pythagoras-Plato-Milinda-Descartes-Post-Church-Turing theory, that is,

the very old mechanist theory just made precise through digitalness).

But, yes, that digital theory makes possible to derive

verifiable/refutable propositions:

-existence of many "physical" histories/worlds, and some of their

indirect effects.

-verifiability of the many interference of the probabilities for any

isolated observable when we look to "ourselves" at a level below the

substitution level.

-observable non locality in the same conditionS.

- non booleanity of what the observables can describe (sort of Kochen

Specker phenomenon)

- It explains and predicts the first person (plural) indeterminacy (I

don't know any simplest explanation of how indeterminacy can occur in a

purely deterministic global context btw).

(+ the first person expectation like the comp-suicide and its quantum

suicide counterparts, etc.)

Of course, the problem is that, *a priori* the theory predicts too

much: the white rabbits, like I sum up usually. But then I show that

the incompleteness constraints (a one (double) diagonalization

consequence of Church thesis) explains why the presence of white

rabbits in that context is not obvious at all. If they remains, after

the math is done, then the comp hyp is refuted.

The main advantage of this approach is that (unlike most physicalist

program) the person cannot be eliminated, and the mind body problem

cannot be put under the rug. Somehow my contribution consists in

showing that the mind body problem, once we assume the computationalist

thesis is two times more difficult than without, because it leads to a

matter problem, under the form of the white rabbit problem, or, as

called in this list, the (relative) measure problem.

Do you know french? All this is explained in all details (perhaps with

too much details) in *Conscience et Mécanisme":

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html

My "result" (not *my* theory) is that evidences accumulate in favor of

Plato's conception of matter (contra the primary matter of Aristotle).

See my Plotinus paper for more precision on this:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

*> or something that could be checked experimentally?
*

There is a possibility of stronger form of Bell's inequality. To

progress on this open problem you have to study the arithmetical

quantum logics I am describing in most of my papers. Eric Vandenbusch

has solved the first open problem, but a lot remains. But my modest

result is that with comp, we *have to* extract physics (the

Schroedinger equation), not a proposal of a derivation, just a reason

why we must do that, and a proposal of a path (the Loebian interview)

for doing that.

What is your opinion about Everett? You can see my reasoning as an

application of Everett's natural idea that a physicist obeys the

physical laws in the mathematician/mathematics realm (or just

arithmetics, combinators, etc.). I can understand that people in

trouble with Everett can be in trouble with the comp hyp and its

consequences.

My *type* of approach consists in just illustrating that Mechanism has

empirically verifiable consequences.

*My* theory of everything, deduced from the comp hyp is just (Robinson)

arithmetic: all the rest emerge from internal points of view. They are

similar (formally or 'relationaly') to Plotinus' hypostases.

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 Thu Mar 06 2008 - 08:49:19 PST

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:49:11 +0100

Le 05-mars-08, à 16:11, <dfzone-everything.domain.name.hidden> a écrit :

I am not sure we could ever *know* a physical law, but of course we can

believe or bet on some physical theory, and make attempt to refute it

experimentally.

(Also it is not *my *theory, but the

Pythagoras-Plato-Milinda-Descartes-Post-Church-Turing theory, that is,

the very old mechanist theory just made precise through digitalness).

But, yes, that digital theory makes possible to derive

verifiable/refutable propositions:

-existence of many "physical" histories/worlds, and some of their

indirect effects.

-verifiability of the many interference of the probabilities for any

isolated observable when we look to "ourselves" at a level below the

substitution level.

-observable non locality in the same conditionS.

- non booleanity of what the observables can describe (sort of Kochen

Specker phenomenon)

- It explains and predicts the first person (plural) indeterminacy (I

don't know any simplest explanation of how indeterminacy can occur in a

purely deterministic global context btw).

(+ the first person expectation like the comp-suicide and its quantum

suicide counterparts, etc.)

Of course, the problem is that, *a priori* the theory predicts too

much: the white rabbits, like I sum up usually. But then I show that

the incompleteness constraints (a one (double) diagonalization

consequence of Church thesis) explains why the presence of white

rabbits in that context is not obvious at all. If they remains, after

the math is done, then the comp hyp is refuted.

The main advantage of this approach is that (unlike most physicalist

program) the person cannot be eliminated, and the mind body problem

cannot be put under the rug. Somehow my contribution consists in

showing that the mind body problem, once we assume the computationalist

thesis is two times more difficult than without, because it leads to a

matter problem, under the form of the white rabbit problem, or, as

called in this list, the (relative) measure problem.

Do you know french? All this is explained in all details (perhaps with

too much details) in *Conscience et Mécanisme":

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html

My "result" (not *my* theory) is that evidences accumulate in favor of

Plato's conception of matter (contra the primary matter of Aristotle).

See my Plotinus paper for more precision on this:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

There is a possibility of stronger form of Bell's inequality. To

progress on this open problem you have to study the arithmetical

quantum logics I am describing in most of my papers. Eric Vandenbusch

has solved the first open problem, but a lot remains. But my modest

result is that with comp, we *have to* extract physics (the

Schroedinger equation), not a proposal of a derivation, just a reason

why we must do that, and a proposal of a path (the Loebian interview)

for doing that.

What is your opinion about Everett? You can see my reasoning as an

application of Everett's natural idea that a physicist obeys the

physical laws in the mathematician/mathematics realm (or just

arithmetics, combinators, etc.). I can understand that people in

trouble with Everett can be in trouble with the comp hyp and its

consequences.

My *type* of approach consists in just illustrating that Mechanism has

empirically verifiable consequences.

*My* theory of everything, deduced from the comp hyp is just (Robinson)

arithmetic: all the rest emerge from internal points of view. They are

similar (formally or 'relationaly') to Plotinus' hypostases.

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 Thu Mar 06 2008 - 08:49:19 PST

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