On 18 Aug, 09:52, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:41, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer <laserma....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >> 1Z wrote:
> >>>> But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
> >>>> mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers
> >>>> described or
> >>>> explain.
>
> >> But what is this "primary matter"? If it is entirely divorced from
> >> all the evidence from physics that various abstract mathematical
> >> models of particles and fields can be used to make accurate
> >> predictions about observed experimental results, then it becomes
> >> something utterly mysterious and divorced from any of our empirical
> >> experiences whatsoever (since all of our intuitions regarding
> >> 'matter' are based solely on our empirical experiences with how it
> >> *behaves* in the sensory realm, and the abstract mathematical
> >> models give perfectly accurate predictions about this behavior).
>
> > Primary matter is very much related to the fact that some theories of
> > physics work and other do not. It won't tell you which ones work, but
> > it will tell you why there is a difference. It solves the white rabbit
> > problem.
>
> QM mechanics solves mathematically the white rabbit problem.
That is still a subset of all possible maths, just like a single-world
universe. Is it a contingent fact that only that subset exists?
>I do
> agree with this, but to say it does this by invoking primitive matter
> does not follow. On the contrary QM amplitude makes primitive matter
> still more hard to figure out. Primitive matter is, up to now, a
> metaphysical notion. Darwinian evolution can justify why we take
> seriously the consistency of our neighborhood, and why we extrapolate
> that consistency, but physicists does not, in their theories, ever
> postulate *primitive* matter.
PM in the sense I define it is quite compatible
with a QM MV (= Tegmark's level III)
> > We don't see logically consistent but otherwise bizarre
> > universes because they are immaterial and non-existent--not matter
> > instantiates
> > that particualar amtehamtical structure.
>
> Are you defending Bohm's Quantum Mechanics?
No. I am defending the idea that PM just *is* contingent
existence. What is immaterial just ain't there.
>The wave without particles
> still act physically, indeed they have to do that for the quantum
> disappearance of the white rabbits.
>
> 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 Tue Aug 18 2009 - 02:58:39 PDT