On 03 Mar 2014, at 01:50, LizR wrote:
On 3 March 2014 13:39, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to
obey conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given
that everything in the universe that had been studied over the
previous 300 years or so appeared to obey these principles, why
would they immediately assume that they wouldn't apply to a new
discovery? And as it turned out, they were right. Neutrinos have
observational consequences above and beyond being a mere
"accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such as
being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical
support (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).
Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing
something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and
thereby achieve conservation. I don't think the general
conservation of energy was considered a firm principle until the mid
1800's and its violation was seriously entertained in the case of
beta decay. But the idea that the "laws of physics" should not
depend on time or place goes back much further and had broader
historical support; not just empirical but also metaphysical.
But only because observations indicate that is how the universe
works. (Actually we do have a theory that references a specific time
- the Big Bang.- but I know what you mean.)
Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a
universal clock. How would it sound to put forth a theory that
reference a specific time? No one would accept it as fundamental.
However, Edgar's p-time would have seemed perfectly plausible to a
Newtonian physicist.
Also, some processes do violate symmetries, and these have been
duly detected, and scientists were duly surprised.
Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous
symmetry and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem. I don't claim
it's an absolute requirement (notice I said "desiderata") but it's
surprising how much you can get out of symmetry principles. Did you
read Stenger's essay? My main point though was to look a little
askance at Tegmark, and others, idea that if we just get the right
math, or the most elegant theory, then we'll know what's really
real. I don't think they pay enough attention to the fact that we
make up the laws of physics.
I would dispute your use of "just" here! Obviously they are hopeful
that we will eventually uncover "the truth", even if we can never
prove we've done so, but I'm not sure that is necessarily
unrealistic, even if it proves to be impossible in practice.
I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he
is at least trying to get his head around the big questions, like
why is there something rather than nothing? In fact his is the only
satisfactory answer to that question I've ever come across, which is
quite an achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.
Tegmark fails to see that his "hypothesis" is a very old (even if
ignored) "theorem". And physics is not a mathematical structure among
others, but a psychological/theological phenomenon arising from
computer-science laws, that is arithmetical laws.
It is a physicist progress in the comp's consequence, but we are far
in advance, in this list, to which Tegmark participated, but he missed
both philosophy of mind and logic.
Then a mistery: his last paper on consciousness regresses a lot from
his paper and book. He seems to still miss the FPI, even if Jason's
quote of Tegmark seems to show he get the step 3 that is the FPI, (but
I explained it to him, so his lack of reference is a bit sad from the
human pov. He follows a common tradition here, like Chalmers).
Bruno
--
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.
