Interesting essay. When I was helping edit Vic's books I made a similar
argument too him - that the reason his Point-of-View-Invariance seemed
so powerful in rederiving physics is that physicist were only interested
in things that obeyed POVI.
You wrote:
/Let us say we were interested in describing all phenomena in our
universe. What type of mathematics would we need? How many axioms would
be needed for mathematical structure to describe all the phenomena? Of
course, it is hard to predict, but it is even harder not to speculate.
One possible conclusion would be that if we look at the universe in
totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, the mathematics we
would need would have no axioms at all. That is, the universe in
totality is devoid of structure and needs no axioms to describe it.
Total lawlessness! The mathematics are just plain sets without
structure. This would finally eliminate all metaphysics when dealing
with the laws of nature and mathematical structure. It is only the way
we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure./
I"m sure you're aware of Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe
Hypothesis" in which all possible mathematical structures obtain in some
universe; and his later restriction of this idea to the "Computable
Universe Hypothesis" in which only Turing computable universes exist.
But you are probably not aware of the ideas of Bruno Marchal, a
mathematical logician in Brussels. He has a much more worked out idea
of reality based on the Universal Dovetailing computer which he combines
with the assumption that consciousness is certain kind of information
processing to conclude that the UD computation produces all experience
and implies physics. It seems like a crankish idea at first, but Bruno
is a very nice and serious guy, not at all a crank (though I don't agree
with all of his theories). Here's his basic paper:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
I know him from his posting on the Everything list;
everything-list@googlegroups.com
Brent
On 7/10/2017 3:56 PM, Noson Yanofsky wrote:
Thank you!
Vic Stenger’s books are always very interesting!!!
Attached is a paper on finding lawlessness.
And here is a link to another paper that was just published:
http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary
Please pass them on to whoever would be interested in them.
All the best,
Noson
*From:*Brent Meeker [mailto:meeke...@verizon.net]
*Sent:* Monday, July 10, 2017 4:48 PM
*To:* spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group
<atvoi...@googlegroups.com>; no...@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu; Atvoid-2
<atvoi...@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: Lawrence Krauss Should Have Paid Attention to Vic
It's gratifying to see Vic's contribution to the philosophy of science
recognized. I think it's important to recognize though that
mathematics is not "effective" in weeding out false physics theories.
Intelligence has evolutionary advantage insofar as it is good at
prediction; which is implicitly projection of regularities into the
future. So humans have a built-in tendency to see patterns - even
where they are specious. They can build mathematical theories which
don't have any reference reality, just as they can invent
superstitions about physical events.
Anyway, thanks to Prof Yanofsky.
Brent
On 7/10/2017 8:14 AM, spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion
Group wrote:
In Marcus Chown's delightful book " The Never Ending Days of Being
Dead" a whole chapter ( Patterns in the Void) is devoted to Vic's
ideas " Where The Laws Of Physics Comes From" Chown used good
judgement including this chapter in his book. I think that had
Lawrence Krauss been more familiar with Vic's work , he
possibly wouldn't have walked in the minefield he did with his
book. "A Universe From Nothing" In my opinion Vic had a very good
answer to this question. This answer has not received enough
attention in the physics and philosophy communities. Here
mathematician Noson S Yanofky fleshes out these ideas in more detail.
Bob Zannelli
*Why Mathematics Works So Well*
Noson S. Yanofsky
<https://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Yanofsky_N/0/1/0/all/0/1>
/(Submitted on 28 Jun 2015)/
A major question in philosophy of science involves the
unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics. Why should
mathematics, created or discovered, with nothing empirical in mind
be so perfectly suited to describe the laws of the physical
universe? We review the well-known fact that the symmetries of the
laws of physics are their defining properties. We show that there
are similar symmetries of mathematical facts and that these
symmetries are the defining properties of mathematics. By
examining the symmetries of physics and mathematics, we show that
the effectiveness is actually quite reasonable. In essence, we
show that the regularities of physics are a subset of the
regularities of mathematics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08426
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to atvoid-2+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:atvoid-2+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to atvoi...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:atvoi...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid-2/15d2d10eb24-2482-168e1%40webprd-m23.mail.aol.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid-2/15d2d10eb24-2482-168e1%40webprd-m23.mail.aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
