On 24 Oct 2014, at 01:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2014 1:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
> Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it
with experiment the values we put into it and the values we
measure after the experiment have only had values at best a dozen
or so places to the right of the decimal point. Are we justified
in extrapolating from that that it would work just as well if
there were a infinite number if digits to the right of the
decimal point? I honestly don't know.
I think it's just a convenience for reasoning about rational
numbers. But then I also think rational numbers are just part of
our model of the world.
That isn't too surprising. Anything we can think about is part of
a model of the world.
But you left out the "just".
Yes, because if you're going to retreat to a "just a model of the
world" viewpoint then you have to be prepared for the fact that it
affects everything else. You're basically postmodernising the
entire scientific enterprise.
No, I'm just pointing out we can't be sure that something that is
part of our model of the world is part of reality;
The map is not the territory, but when well used, the map is still a
part of the territory.
and this is exactly the same as being uncertain that there are real
numbers.
Yeah, but we might try not doing philosophy. A TOE must just be clear
about what is assumed, and what is derived.
Physicalist assumes a physical universe, and, too bad, a physical
universe is what I want to derive from simpler idea. Physics is a
wonderful science of nature, but it assumes what I think we can prove
to be an aspect of something else.
In spite of Kronecker, the integers are just as much a human
invention as the reals.
How do you know that?
You make that theory. But with computationalism we explain the
functioning of the human brain, and even its apparent observable
quantum constitution by assuming numbers and relations between numbers.
Do you think that when Ramanujan died, the extravagance of the number
24 disappeared?
Are you not confusing the human theories and works in their
exploration of some realities and that realities.
The sum of consecutive odd numbers, starting from zero, gives the
square. Do you think that this can be invented?
We shouldn't take our models to seriously. We may find a better one
next week.
Exactly.
And the "physical primary universe" idea might be among those models
we might stop taking too much seriously.
A refinement of Wigner question is why does group theory play a so
crucial role in physics.? Normally this should stem from the symmetry
at the sigma_1 bottom (where p -> []<>p is satisfied, and we get a
quantization).
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
