> On 30 Sep 2018, at 13:42, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:02:36 PM UTC-5, kujawski...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about > Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis: > > - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences > - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the > diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures. > - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse > structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide > Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc. > > What are your thoughts. > > > Regards > > I think it is best to assume pragmatic stance with respect to this.
I am not sure of this. I would have said that only a theoretical view can be given, where we make clear the metaphysical theological or psychological hypotheses. > The idea the physical universe is ultimately mathematics is a huge category > mixing that suffers from problems. I agree with this, and that is why it is important to state the hypothesis, notably in the cognitive science. > Physics is an empirical subject that tests the workings of a theory by > performing observations and measurements. Mathematics is a subject concerned > with abstract structures and objects and their logical relationships. > Physical objects move through space or are an aspect of geometrodynamics in > relativity and they obey conservation rules. As such mathematics is used to > describe physical systems and to compute things. This is different than > saying the two subjects are equivalent. Mathematics is not an empirical > subject, though with computers some areas of math have started to take one a > sort of synthetic empiricism. Physics is also not something that is > determined entirely by logical relationships and just pure theory. We have > some issues of course with quantum gravitation and whether that can ever be > empirically brought to tests. As I explain in my papers, once we assume the “indexical digital mechanist hypothesis”,(hereafter called simply Mechanism) physicalism does not work, and physics do not explain why the physical prediction fit with the psychological (first person) predictions. It uses implicitly a very strong induction axioms which can be shown inconsistent. With Mechanism, there is no more a “physical universe” at the ontological level, and physics is reduced to the theology, or psychology if you prefer, intrinsic to the numbers and their arithmetical relations. This makes the physical reality into pure arithmetic, with respect to psychology/theology. The propositional logic of the observable, for example, is given by the logic of some variants of the logic of provability. This works in the sense that we get a quantum logic where it should be expected. > > Quantum mechanics is close to being a sort of physical logic. Quantum > mechanics is close to being a case of MUH, though I would not go so far as to > actually make that pronouncement. For those who take the trouble to learn > about the bosonic string, say by reading Polchinski's vol 1 String Theory > will see this is really pure quantum mechanics according to a more complete > understanding of the complex plane. This may go further with modular forms. > Vol 2 of Polchinski's book works with supersymmetry. This might be ultimately > a deeper description of quantum mechanics. Maybe quantum mechanics is just a > modular system of automorphisms over the Fischer-Griess Monster Group that > maintains a conservation of this as the fundamental vacuum state. So this all > sounds highly mathematical, but I would still hesitate to say physics is > mathematics. Physics is not mathematics. That would be the category error you allude to above. With mechanism, all this is rather well clarified. The physical reality emerges from a very special mathematical phenomenon: the way the "dreams by numbers" (the computations seen in the self-referential modes) get structured by the incompleteness phenomenon. > > The relationship between physics and mathematics is maybe unknowable. It is indeed, as Mechanism is unknowable too, but we can hope, prey, fear … it could be true. Bruno > I think of Garrison Keillor with his Guy Noir skits that start with, "One man > on the tenth floor of the Acme Building searches for answers to life's > persistent questions; Guy Noir private eye." > > LC > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
