On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous >>>> >>>> *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous >>>> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero >>>> physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the >>>> question in metaphysics. >>>> >>>> Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from >>>> arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as >>>> far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the >>>> first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences >>>> today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, >>>> or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference. >>>> >>>> Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for >>>> anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the >>>> existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is >>>> the >>>> correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not >>> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with >>> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics >>> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical >>> theory*. >>> >>> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises >>> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may >>> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their >>> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be >> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from >> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG >> >>> >>> >>> >> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the > "continuity"-appearing empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus. > > > *A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus* > International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014 > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus > > > @philipthrift >
Was Fractional Calculus known when E developed GR? AG -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a88412aa-d88f-4318-86ba-ec8bab205197%40googlegroups.com.
