On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> If you insist on using common English words in non-standard ways it's >> your own damn fault if you're constantly misunderstood! > > > > > I reassure you, I am constantly misunderstood only by people not reading > what I write, > When 99% of humanity observe the ASCII sequence G-O-D that you have written they have a clear understanding of what that sequence represents, but it's apparently very different from what you mean. This confusion could be easily cleared up by you simply by using a different ASCII sequence, but you flat out refuse to do so. Why? I can think of only one reason, if your thoughts are muddled clarity of language is not your friend. > > > with mechanism, we have to derive physics from arithmetic, not from logic. > And it works very well until now. > If arithmetic "works very well" why do physicists bother to do experiments, why did they spend 10 billion dollars to build the LHC, why didn't they just sit in a comfy armchair with nothing but a copy of the multiplication table and figure out how the physical world works? > > > The laws of physics, in fact any laws assume some logic(s). > I think it would be closer to the truth to say the laws of logic assume the laws of physics. If the laws of physics were different and whenever 2 rocks (or 2 of anything) were brought to our attention and then 2 more rocks were brought to our attention then a extra rock always popped into existence the laws of both logic and arithmetic that humans devised would be quite different from what we have today. Everyone would say it is intuitively obvious that 2+2=5. >> >> If we both agree that physics can do things that mathematics can not it >> should be obvious which is more fundamental. > > > > > Mathematics can do that, even just arithmetic. > Baloney. A rithmetic can't derive the laws of physics no r can it derive a mind, it can't even figure out how much 2+2 is without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics. I found another interesting quote, there is no question who wrote it because it's in Hugh Everett's handwriting and you can see a photograph of the letter on Page 177 of Peter Byrne's book "The Many Worlds Of Hugh Everett": *"There is no question about which of the final observers corresponds to the initial one, since each of them possess the total; Memory of the first (Which amoeba is the original one?) The successive memory sequence of an observer do not form a linear array, but a planar graph (tree): the TRAJECTORY of a observer forms a line not a TREE." * Everett even drew a little diagram so there would be no misunderstanding, and the words I capitalized he underlined. John K Clark > > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
