On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without
assuming Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their
description of physics.
Turing universality can just be a property of physics, like density
or mass.
That is close to just nonsense (but I agree that some notorious
physicists are attracted to this, but they don't convince me).
Just as Comp does a brute appropriation of qualia under 1p
uncertainty,
No. That would be a confusion between []p and []p & p (or others).
Only God can do that confusion.
physics can do a brute appropriation of arithmetic under material
topology.
Some material disposition can be shown to be Turing universal. But
this is proved in showing how such system can implement a universal
machine (quantum or not quantum one).
It would explain why Turing universality does not apply to gases
It applies to gases. technically no usable, as it is hard to put all
the gaz molecules at the right position at the right time, but in
principle, gases, in some volume, are Turing universal system.
and empty space.
Hmm... Quantum vacuum is Turing universal. I think.
For classical physics, you need at least three bodies.
Computers require object-like properties to control and measure
digitally.
Yes.
You often say, "we can do that", but this makes sense only if you do
it actually.
Some people might say that it is being done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDCwrbqHfTM
The Future of Computing -- Reuniting Bits and Atoms
I hope you are not serious. Interesting but non relevant.
The Future of Computing -- Reuniting Bits and Atoms
as easily as physics can be derived from sensible numbers.
Physics is not yet extracted, only the or some quantum tautologies,
and that was not that much easy, at least for me ...
But the principle of the possibility is not difficult, at least, not
for anyone who has ever programmed a player-missile graphic/avatar/
collision detection in a game.
On the contrary. Hmm... I see you have not yet grasped the main UDA
points. Even if the physicist find a dimple equation or program
emulating the physical universe, to extract both the quanta and the
qualia, we have to derive physics explicitly from ... sense. That is
why sense if fundamental. But to derive physics from first person
sense is not easy at all, and to understand this you have first to
understand how sense is derived from arithmetic.
Keep in mind that with comp, physics does not involve one particular
computation, but all computations at once.
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
