On 14 Feb 2014, at 22:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true.
...
Even F=m*a cannot be universal as I've shown,
It might be. I think it is (I mean the Feynman generalisation,
which
is already close to comp-physics, but that's out of the topic).
...
The computation interfere below the substitution level, but the
artificial simulation with F≠ma, bring an artificial physics,
which
does not result from the interference below the subst. level.
If qZ1* proves F=ma, and if my environment does not obeys F=ma, it
will looks "dreamy" to me, I will see that I am not in a real
(comp)
physical reality, I will see the discrepancy.
F=ma is more of a definition actually, than a logical constraint. It
is how we define (and operationally measure) "force".
No problem with that, and that is why a answered with F = KmM/r^2,
but that was not much relevant.
If you have a copy of Vic Stenger's "Comprehensible Cosmos", he
discusses this from page 48.
No problem. I appreciate the argument.
I read it online, and it was taught by some physicists.
Actually, the correct relativistic form is F=dp/dt, where p is the 3
momentum of the object under consideration. F=ma is its low velocity
approximation.
Sure. Even F = dp/dt is a classical approximation deducible from
Feynman integral.
So I would be surprised if COMP fails to prove Newton's second law -
it would mean someone was using terminology inconsistently.
F= ma is like H phi = E phi. All is in F, or H. Those equality
should be laws indeed, and deducible from deeper laws. It might be
more doubtful for F or H, except that the Turing universality of
the vacuum suggest some "H = 0", à-la Dewitt-Wheeler. But we are
not yet there ..
But this seems to point to a deeper problem. If we elaborate H and
E as operators and psi as a ray in a Hilbert space and if we further
define the Hilbert space, we will still have a symbolic expression
which we can related ostensively to some apparatus. But we will
never get down to an arithmetical computation.
That would not make sense. In the (comp) physical reality, we can only
get down physically, on something physical.
Comp does not make matter into something made of number or
computations. it is only a point of view, or an internal angle of
arithmetic seen from inside. If we get H psi = E psi, we will have the
same ostensive relation with apparatus in comp.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
