Re: Tao and Physics

[Philip Thrift]

My Tao of quantum mechanics is simple:

QM is baffling for those who turn away from retrodependency* and 
stochasticity. 

* 
https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance

- pt


-- 
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.

RE: Tao and Physics

[Philip Benjamin]

[Lawrence Crowell]
1. It would be a big stretch to say there is some quantum consciousness at work 
here so that the ψ wave is somehow manifesting itself in these mystical 
practices.
2. There is a sort of similarity in patterns of thought or mental realizations 
with Eastern mystical traditions.
3.  Eastern spiritual basis is similar to quantum mechanics, in that one must 
escape the suffering of this world through meditative practice that penetrates 
beyond the separating dualisms of this world.
4. Eastern Civilization abandoned the idea of gods enacting laws of nature.
5. The merging of mathematically verifiable Hellenic categorical axioms with 
Hebrew  idea of Kodesh (separation) occurred with Christianity. After  the dark 
age, western intellectual progress resurged later on.
[Philip Benjamin]
This post is a unwarranted criticism and apology for Western Civilization as 
“unscientific”—or not ‘Quantum-conforming’-- and an unqualified endorsement and 
un-evidential apologetics for Eastern Civilization as Quantum-conforming and 
therefore scientific. What the WAMP physicists (defined elsewhere below) do not 
acknowledge is that the “Copenpagan” Interpretation is irrational, unscientific 
and contrary to the law of noncontradiction. The de Broglie wave-likeness was 
unnecessarily
changed to Bohr’s waviness to accommodate Bohr’s Tao (Yin/Yang of opposites).  
[His wealthy Jewish mother had brought him up as a Lutheran]. Thus the rational 
AS IF logic was replaced with the irrational BOTH & fallacy; so  much so that 
Einstein referred to Bohr as a “Talmudic philosopher”. While Buddhism with its 
dogma of Rebirth (an offspring of Hinduism with its Reincarnation) and its 
offshoots reject the Vedic 330 million Hindu gods (and also the caste system), 
both practice meditations and Yogasanas to achieve Moksha or Nirvana.
Scientific advancement and material prosperity require acceptance and control 
or “dominion” of the reality of the physical world around. Science did not and 
could not have originated in an ethos governed by Maya or mysticism or 
superstitions. In the West even the Resurrection is a physical reality that 
changed the almost 3-millennia old rigid Seventh Day Worship of the 100% Jewish 
Christian congregations of the early First Century to the First Day worship of 
the Week, even in the Temple premises (Acts 20:7 & Acts 2:46).
 According to a Quora article: “The only reasonable conclusion is 
that Islam indeed caused what was known as the Dark Ages”. 
https://www.quora.com/Did-Islam-cause-the-Dark-Ages.  When Jihadism closed for 
the West all land routes to the East, it required the “quickened” or 
“regenerated” spirits of Western explorers to go into the unknown waters of the 
oceans for sea routes and in the process discover new continents and establish 
colonies.

   This Crowell-post only points to the consequences of the deep 
divisions in Americas and Europe which are irreparable and irrevocable—not just 
on abortions and LGBT “court-fiats”, barring the very unlikely Third Awakening 
in America. An Awakening (the Prophetic or Quakers’ Quickening) is antithetical 
to the “Yogic trance” for “consciousness control”, which the Bible condemns as 
“evil spirit directed” (superstitions of Eastern customs, Isaiah 2: 6). The 
Kavanaugh controversy is only the tip of the iceberg.

Evidentialist

Philip Benjamin
Note: The self-righteous, grubering, intolerant WAMP-the-Ingrate = Western 
Acade-Media Paganism (parody of WASP). Academedia (acade-media): The monstrous 
double headed hybrid of a small minority of all academics including seminarians 
and a large majority of all media including the Hollywood, with 
no-question-asked Marxist-like authoritarianism as their modus operandi. Based 
on the works of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Ben Stein, Victor Mordecai, ex-Marxist 
David Horowitz
Upon decoupling, the unenergized (unregenerated), non-entropic bio dark-matter 
bodies co-created at the moment of conception will be lost in their abodes of 
the dark-matter realms (black holes), by their own willful choice. Adapted from 
"Ten Implications of Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"(ResearchGate) and "Spiritual 
Body or Physical Spirit" Sunbury Press, by Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA
A Caveat: WAMP is no match for Jihadism which brutalized India for one thousand 
years, Spain and other European nations for 300-800 years, all of Middle East, 
a chunk of East Europe and inhumanly vanquished the Christian Byzantines etc. 
Had it not been for the British Empire (the vastest, greatest, mightiest, 
noblest ever--not perfect), the whole world would have been under Jihadism by 
now and the self-righteous grubering WAMP-the-Ingrate would never ever have 
seen the light of day.


From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Lawrence Crowell Tuesday, October 02, 2018 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Tao and Physics

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 3:39:17 AM UTC-5, 
kujawski...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Tao and Physics

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:04 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> Mysticism is certainly not bullshit when you understand that any
> universal number/set believing in “enoughinduction” axioms discover his own
> theology* [...]


Bruno, whenever you use that word or the G word you just lose me, I don't
know what you're talking about.

 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.

Re: Tao and Physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Oct 2018, at 15:53, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Fritz Capra wrote a book titled The Tao of Physics. I read it in high 
> > school and again as an undergraduate. This book is probably one of the most 
> > reviled book by physicists, though a few think it is good. I am a bit 
> > neutral.
> 
> I read "The Tao of Physics" when if first came out and thought it was 
> mediocre at best. At the time it was my opinion that all forms of mysticism 
> was 100% bullshit, but not long after that I read  Raymond Smullyan's book 
> "The Tao is silent".  Smullyan's book covers many of the same topics as 
> Capra's but does a incomparably better job.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Silent-Raymond-M-Smullyan/dp/0060674695 
>  
> 
> I read a lot of books but even today I'd have to say "The Tao of Physics" is 
> one of the 2 or 3 best books I ever read. I still think mysticism is mostly 
> bullshit but after reading Smullyan's book I had a little less confidence in 
> my 100% figure, it may have been a little too high. 


I agree.

Capra is invalid. It strikes the eye when he compares a picture of a writing of 
Einstein and a text is sanskrit, where the common point is that it just 
unreadable. It is magic matter added to magic mind added to 
incomprehensibility. It is against reductionism in intension, but such vague 
thought can go quickly to obscurantism, which is reductionism in disguise 
(answering instead of questioning).

Another book, the dancing Wu-li Master, was much less wrong.

And, yes, Smullyan go very near the consistent theology (consistent with 
mechanism, but missed it again in its Forever Undecided, and in its 
philosophical remarks on Post in his last book), but both “Tao is silent” and 
“5000 BC” are very good.

Mysticism is certainly not bullshit when you understand that any universal 
number/set believing in “enough induction” axioms discover his own theology 
(the logic G*), and indeed can fall in many traps from there, like taking the 
truth in G* as axioms, about themselves literally: that makes them into 
Rogerian sentences (these machine which asserts their consistency, cf also ma 
definition of stupidity and intelligence, if you remember).

Of course I limit myself to correct machine, making G* extending properly G.

I recall that G is the normal modal logic with axioms L

[]([]p -> p) -> []p. (Löb formula).

Normal means that we have (together with the modus ponies rule and classical) 
the axioms

 [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)

and the necessitation rule A / []A.

G* has as axioms all theorems of G, + the axioms []p -> p. It is not a normal 
logic, as it is not close for the necessitation rule (and that should be 
obvious(*))

Bruno

Let me show the obvious. If G* was close for the necessitation, we would have, 
with “f” = “0=1”, or “Santa Klauss exist”:

1) []f -> f. (Axiom)
2) []([]f -> f) (Necessitation)
3) []([]f -> f) -> []f. (Löb’s formula)
4) []f  (modus ponens on line “2)” and “3)” )
5) f. (Modus pones on line “1)” and “4)” ).  

Note that the three primary modes: []p (in G and G*) and S4Grz the logic of the 
new box [1]p = []p & p., the first person: we have

G has L, necessitation but not reflexion ([]p -> p)
S4Grz has necessitation, reflexion but has not L
G* has L, reflexion but not the necessitation.

The theorems of Solovay is that, in a nutshell, G formalise the complete 
arithmetical provable part of the provability logic, and G* formalises 
completely the true part of the provability logic, including the many truth 
othat the machine cannot prove.

G* minus G is what I call the proper theology, or the mystical part, which is 
the part on which the wise machine stay mute and only the fool talk (as Lao-Ze 
said).

For a long time I thought that the taoists were the human theologians closer to 
the theology of the machine, but eventually, I discover better, like the 
bektashi or alive muslims (alas permuted since 1258, uo to now, there are still 
60.000 in the Balkans), and generally the soufi, like the jewish (except the 
Aristotelian deviation  after Maimonides). I got some indirect confirmation of 
this, as the bektashi muslims were known to have save the Jewish during WW II, 
and … the taoist did fall in the trap (despite the warning of Lao-Ze), and the 
taoist army where the more feared in the Chinese world at some period of time.

Plotinus was aware of the difficulty of how to talk about something which we 
cannot talk about. Wittgenstein also tells us to stay mute, but of course that 
generate the question “but for God sake, what are you talking about?”, and we 
get near the theological trap. <>t is true, but []<>t is false. Consistency, 
the arithmetical interpretation of <>t, is the simplest theorem of G*, it is 
the simplest truth on some consistent machine, yet non provable, nor even 
assertable

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:25:17 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Oct 2018, at 09:53, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 2:20:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 Oct 2018, at 14:20, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:47:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 


 Bruno



>>> Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
>>> set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)
>>>
>>> (I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)
>>>
>>> *The set-theoretic multiverse*
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223
>>>
>>> Joel David Hamkins
>>> @JDHamkins
>>> Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow 
>>> in Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org
>>>
>>>
>>> The math is interesting, and could be of some use, but it is a priori 
>>> far too much Aristotelian to be coherent with the mechanist hypothesis. 
>>> That should follow “easily” from the result described in most of my papers 
>>> on this subject. The author does not seem aware of the mind-body problem, 
>>> which put extreme constraints on what the physical reality can come from. 
>>> Even Peano arithmetic, although integral part of the notion of observer, is 
>>> too much rich for the ontology, where not only the axiom of infinity is too 
>>> strong, 
>>>
>>
>> *Since you want to banish the concept of infinity from mathematics, how 
>> would you define, say, the limit of an "infinite" series? How would you 
>> even discuss this series in the context of finite mathematics? AG*
>>
>>
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> The answer is not simple technically. The point is that using only the 
>> theory Q (Robinson Arithmetic) or SK (the combinators), I can define the 
>> universal (Turing, Church) machine, and the concept of infinity will be a 
>> tool used by them in their mathematics.
>>
>> I do not ban anything from mathematics, nor from physics. I ban only 
>> infinity from the ontological terms. I ban only infinity in the 
>> metaphysics/theology. (Even God is not ontological, like in Proclus or 
>> Plotinus theology).
>>
>> Have you understand the post on Church’s thesis. You might tell me as 
>> this will help me to see how to proceed to make you grasp all this.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>
> What do you think of bounded arithmetic and other "finitist" approaches?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_arithmetic
> see bibliography: 
> http://jeanpaulvanbendegem.be/home/papers/strict-finitism/
>
>
> I wrote a paper on this, in a book in honour to Jean-paul Vanbendegem. But 
> its approach is more than finitist, and a bit less than ultra-finitism. It 
> does not fit the study of the “theology” of the machine, and is thus 
> useless for deriving physics. That does not mean it is not interesting 
> pragmatically, on the contrary, it is well fitted with the goal to make 
> usable programs. I do think that mathematically, it is also a restriction 
> of Post creativity (Turing universality in set theoretical terms) to sub 
> creativity. There is no possible universal machine there.
>
>
>
>
>
> Computable real analysis (one can teach computable calculus instead of 
> "conventional" calculus) is essentially finitist:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis
>
> One can formulate the *Axiom of Infinity* [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity ] in a type of bounded 
> set theory (Jan Mycielski [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mycielski 
> ], described in 
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Understanding_the_Infinite.html?id=GvGqRYifGpMC
>  
> ]. What results is an "ontology" of bigger and bigger finite sets of 
> numbers with gaps in them.
>
>
>
> Yes, and that is interesting. But not so much for the mind-body problem, 
> where we cannot bound anything, except by omega. 
>
> The weaker theory known from which my approach can work, is the 
> delta_0-induction based on Q + the axioms for the exponential, known as 
> Delta_0Exp. That is Q:
>
> 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> 4) x+0 = x
> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> 6) x*0=0
> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>
> + 
>
> 8) x^0 = 1
> 9) x^s(y) = x * (x^y)
>
> + the scheme of induction axioms:
>
> P(0) & [For all n (P(n) -> P(s(n)))] ->. For all n P(n),
>
> with P restricted to the delta_0 (= sigma_0 = pi_0 = recursive, decidable, 
> …) formula.
>
>
>
> That is the weaker Löbian machine known today.
>
> In between Q and Delta_0Exp, you have all the bounded arithmetics.
>
> An excellent book on this is (without the many accent for the names):
>
> Hajek, P. & Pudlak P., 1993, Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic, 
> Springer-Verlag.
>
> But no need of this for the mind body proble

Re: Tao and Physics

[kujawskilucjan85]

Thank you Lawrence for your clarification, but is it possibile that taoist 
mistics had some intuitive glimpse of that reality described by quantum theory? 
Maybe this od the case?

-- 
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.

Re: Tao and Physics

[kujawskilucjan85]

Thank you, very interesting response. I don't know if she was after Capra, she 
have pointed me to Shantena Augusto Sabbadini

 https://youtu.be/YcKbpMIelMo

0:00 - 27:00 - part is introduction to double slit experiment

27:30 he start relating physics to words of Laozi

-- 
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.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Oct 2018, at 10:14, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:20:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Oct 2018, at 14:20, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:47:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
>>> set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)
>>> 
>>> (I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)
>>> 
>>> The set-theoretic multiverse
>>> 
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223 
>>> 
>>> Joel David Hamkins
>>> @JDHamkins
>>> Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow in 
>>> Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org 
>>> 
>> 
>> The math is interesting, and could be of some use, but it is a priori far 
>> too much Aristotelian to be coherent with the mechanist hypothesis. That 
>> should follow “easily” from the result described in most of my papers on 
>> this subject. The author does not seem aware of the mind-body problem, which 
>> put extreme constraints on what the physical reality can come from. Even 
>> Peano arithmetic, although integral part of the notion of observer, is too 
>> much rich for the ontology, where not only the axiom of infinity is too 
>> strong,
>> 
>> Since you want to banish the concept of infinity from mathematics, how would 
>> you define, say, the limit of an "infinite" series? How would you even 
>> discuss this series in the context of finite mathematics? AG
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The answer is not simple technically. The point is that using only the theory 
> Q (Robinson Arithmetic) or SK (the combinators), I can define the universal 
> (Turing, Church) machine, and the concept of infinity will be a tool used by 
> them in their mathematics.
> 
> I do not ban anything from mathematics, nor from physics. I ban only infinity 
> from the ontological terms. I ban only infinity in the metaphysics/theology. 
> (Even God is not ontological, like in Proclus or Plotinus theology).
> 
> Have you understand the post on Church’s thesis. You might tell me as this 
> will help me to see how to proceed to make you grasp all this.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> You only ban infinity from ontological terms? I have no idea what this means.


It means that 0 exist, 1, exists, 2 exists, etc.



> I do know you start with the natural numbers, presumably an infinite set and 
> existing in some Platonic realm.


Not really. Only 0, 1, 2, …

But not {0, 1, 2, 3 …}, which is not a natural number.

It means that my axioms, for the whole theory of everything including 
consciousness is literally just classical logic + the axioms of Q:

1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

There is no infinity axiom, nor any infinite object in the intended model. What 
is proved from Q is true in all models (interpretations) of Q.

I don’t even allow the induction axioms, despite the phenomenology use them, as 
Q is rich enough to mimic the believer in the induction axioms, and indeed the 
believer in infinity (like the ZF machine).

To grasp this it is important to understand the difference between compute and 
proof.

Keep in mind that Q can mimic ZF proving the consistence of Q; but that cannot 
convince Q of its consistency (by the second incompleteness theorem of Gödel).






> So I have no idea about your aversion or denial of infinity.

No aversion at all. It is just part of the phenomenology, and if I put it in 
the ontology, the “white rabbits” becomes to numerous, and the physics predicts 
too many things.



> As for the Church's thesis, I have set aside a copy of Chrome with several 
> relevant topics which I see as prerequisites to that understanding including, 
> for example, Cantor's theorem, but have yet to get into it seriously due to 
> personal issues and computer problems in Russia and Ukraine (the latter now 
> solved). But when I do, I'll get back to you. AG


OK. Normally my post was self contained. (Except for the notion of function). 
Ask any question.

Bruno 


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> but even the induction axioms are too strong. 
>> 
>> Pragmatically, sets and typed lambda terms or typed combinators can indeed 
>> be very useful. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - pt
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Oct 2018, at 09:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 2:20:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Oct 2018, at 14:20, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:47:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
>>> set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)
>>> 
>>> (I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)
>>> 
>>> The set-theoretic multiverse
>>> 
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223 
>>> 
>>> Joel David Hamkins
>>> @JDHamkins
>>> Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow in 
>>> Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org 
>>> 
>> 
>> The math is interesting, and could be of some use, but it is a priori far 
>> too much Aristotelian to be coherent with the mechanist hypothesis. That 
>> should follow “easily” from the result described in most of my papers on 
>> this subject. The author does not seem aware of the mind-body problem, which 
>> put extreme constraints on what the physical reality can come from. Even 
>> Peano arithmetic, although integral part of the notion of observer, is too 
>> much rich for the ontology, where not only the axiom of infinity is too 
>> strong,
>> 
>> Since you want to banish the concept of infinity from mathematics, how would 
>> you define, say, the limit of an "infinite" series? How would you even 
>> discuss this series in the context of finite mathematics? AG
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The answer is not simple technically. The point is that using only the theory 
> Q (Robinson Arithmetic) or SK (the combinators), I can define the universal 
> (Turing, Church) machine, and the concept of infinity will be a tool used by 
> them in their mathematics.
> 
> I do not ban anything from mathematics, nor from physics. I ban only infinity 
> from the ontological terms. I ban only infinity in the metaphysics/theology. 
> (Even God is not ontological, like in Proclus or Plotinus theology).
> 
> Have you understand the post on Church’s thesis. You might tell me as this 
> will help me to see how to proceed to make you grasp all this.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of bounded arithmetic and other "finitist" approaches?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_arithmetic
> see bibliography: http://jeanpaulvanbendegem.be/home/papers/strict-finitism/

I wrote a paper on this, in a book in honour to Jean-paul Vanbendegem. But its 
approach is more than finitist, and a bit less than ultra-finitism. It does not 
fit the study of the “theology” of the machine, and is thus useless for 
deriving physics. That does not mean it is not interesting pragmatically, on 
the contrary, it is well fitted with the goal to make usable programs. I do 
think that mathematically, it is also a restriction of Post creativity (Turing 
universality in set theoretical terms) to sub creativity. There is no possible 
universal machine there.




> 
> Computable real analysis (one can teach computable calculus instead of 
> "conventional" calculus) is essentially finitist:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis
> 
> One can formulate the Axiom of Infinity [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity ] in a type of bounded set 
> theory (Jan Mycielski [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mycielski ], 
> described in 
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Understanding_the_Infinite.html?id=GvGqRYifGpMC
>  ]. What results is an "ontology" of bigger and bigger finite sets of numbers 
> with gaps in them.


Yes, and that is interesting. But not so much for the mind-body problem, where 
we cannot bound anything, except by omega. 

The weaker theory known from which my approach can work, is the 
delta_0-induction based on Q + the axioms for the exponential, known as 
Delta_0Exp. That is Q:

1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

+ 

8) x^0 = 1
9) x^s(y) = x * (x^y)

+ the scheme of induction axioms:

P(0) & [For all n (P(n) -> P(s(n)))] ->. For all n P(n),

with P restricted to the delta_0 (= sigma_0 = pi_0 = recursive, decidable, …) 
formula.



That is the weaker Löbian machine known today.

In between Q and Delta_0Exp, you have all the bounded arithmetics.

An excellent book on this is (without the many accent for the names):

Hajek, P. & Pudlak P., 1993, Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic, 
Springer-Verlag.

But no need of this for the mind body problem, which needs at least Delta_0Exp 
(Löbianity), for the observer. Of course I use the fact that Q can mimic 
Delta_0Exp. But Q does not belie

Re: Tao and Physics

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Fritz Capra wrote a book titled The Tao of Physics. I read it in high
> school and again as an undergraduate. This book is probably one of the most
> reviled book by physicists, though a few think it is good. I am a bit
> neutral.*


I read "The Tao of Physics" when if first came out and thought it was
mediocre at best. At the time it was my opinion that all forms of mysticism
was 100% bullshit, but not long after that I read  Raymond Smullyan's book
"The Tao is silent".  Smullyan's book covers many of the same topics as
Capra's but does a incomparably better job.

https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Silent-Raymond-M-Smullyan/dp/0060674695

I read a lot of books but even today I'd have to say "The Tao of Physics"
is one of the 2 or 3 best books I ever read. I still think mysticism is
mostly bullshit but after reading Smullyan's book I had a little less
confidence in my 100% figure, it may have been a little too high.

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.

Re: Tao and Physics

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 8:39:17 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My friend is not physicist I think she understand physics on 
> popular-science level same as me. Few days ago she told me that 
> contemporary physics show something about what ancient taoists sages was 
> talking - Tao - unnamed, undivided reality. I was not able to argue with 
> her becourse of my low understanding of physics but I make research and 
> there are in fact some physicist who endorse this view. Some od them talk 
> about tao, others talk about sunyata (buddhists notion) but maybe these are 
> just theirs personal opinion and mixing it with physics is unvalid?  


More or less sophisticated hand-waving based on an ignorance of physics. 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 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.

Re: Tao and Physics

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 3:39:17 AM UTC-5, kujawski...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> My friend is not physicist I think she understand physics on 
> popular-science level same as me. Few days ago she told me that 
> contemporary physics show something about what ancient taoists sages was 
> talking - Tao - unnamed, undivided reality. I was not able to argue with 
> her becourse of my low understanding of physics but I make research and 
> there are in fact some physicist who endorse this view. Some od them talk 
> about tao, others talk about sunyata (buddhists notion) but maybe these are 
> just theirs personal opinion and mixing it with physics is unvalid?  


Fritz Capra wrote a book titled The Tao of Physics. I read it in high 
school and again as an undergraduate. This book is probably one of the most 
reviled book by physicists, though a few think it is good. I am a bit 
neutral. Capra makes comparisons between nonlocality of quantum mechanics 
and the Taoist idea that a vessel holding nothing is a paradox by assigning 
the word nothing to the emptiness in the vessel. In some ways the quantum 
wave or state is something that defies standard existential categories.

Western civilization progressed along the lines of defining separate 
categorical rules to different entities and using the resulting different 
categorical rules in logical constructions. This has its origins in the 
Hellenic notions of mathematical proof based on axioms and the Hebrew idea 
of Kodesh or separation. The merging of Hellenic and Hebrew constructions 
occurred with Christianity, where while this did put a dark age blanket on 
western intellectual progress it did pave the wave for a resurgence later 
on. A reading of Immanuel Kant reveals the pains he took in laying down 
categories. 

Eastern civilization progressed along different lines. For one they 
abandoned the idea of there existing Gods and by extension the concept of 
there being laws or rules that Gods enforce. Plato wrote down the argument 
by Socrates and Euthyphro on this point that is worth reading. Eastern 
spiritual basis is that one must escape the suffering of this world through 
meditative practice that penetrates beyond the separating dualisms of this 
world. This does have some similarities to quantum mechanics that has 
nonlocal properties that defy the sort of categories in Western thought and 
are more similar to Eastern thought.

Where I think things go awry with the idea of Taoism or Buddhism as quantum 
physics is when people say they are the same. We could just as well take 
the dialectics of Hegel and just say that Hegel codified quantum 
principles, and that Hegel was a quantum thinker. What I think is occurring 
in these instances is a sort of similarity in patterns of thought or mental 
realizations with Eastern mystical traditions, and for that matter Hegel as 
well, with quantum theory. It would be a big stretch to say there is some 
quantum consciousness at work here so that the ψ wave is somehow 
manifesting itself in these mystical practices. Bohr maintained that 
quantum physics must have a classical ordinary language description, and 
this description does illustrate how the quantum wave is something we can't 
put an objective finger on. By a similar pattern of thinking the idea of 
Taoism is similar. However, Lao Tse is not likely to have had some quantum 
ψ wave percolate into his brain or consciousness as the basis for the Tao. 

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.
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.

Tao and Physics

[kujawskilucjan85]

My friend is not physicist I think she understand physics on popular-science 
level same as me. Few days ago she told me that contemporary physics show 
something about what ancient taoists sages was talking - Tao - unnamed, 
undivided reality. I was not able to argue with her becourse of my low 
understanding of physics but I make research and there are in fact some 
physicist who endorse this view. Some od them talk about tao, others talk about 
sunyata (buddhists notion) but maybe these are just theirs personal opinion and 
mixing it with physics is unvalid?   

-- 
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.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:20:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Oct 2018, at 14:20, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:47:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
>> set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)
>>
>> (I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)
>>
>> *The set-theoretic multiverse*
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223
>>
>> Joel David Hamkins
>> @JDHamkins
>> Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow 
>> in Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
>> http://jdh.hamkins.org
>>
>>
>> The math is interesting, and could be of some use, but it is a priori far 
>> too much Aristotelian to be coherent with the mechanist hypothesis. That 
>> should follow “easily” from the result described in most of my papers on 
>> this subject. The author does not seem aware of the mind-body problem, 
>> which put extreme constraints on what the physical reality can come from. 
>> Even Peano arithmetic, although integral part of the notion of observer, is 
>> too much rich for the ontology, where not only the axiom of infinity is too 
>> strong, 
>>
>
> *Since you want to banish the concept of infinity from mathematics, how 
> would you define, say, the limit of an "infinite" series? How would you 
> even discuss this series in the context of finite mathematics? AG*
>
>
>
> Good question.
>
> The answer is not simple technically. The point is that using only the 
> theory Q (Robinson Arithmetic) or SK (the combinators), I can define the 
> universal (Turing, Church) machine, and the concept of infinity will be a 
> tool used by them in their mathematics.
>
> I do not ban anything from mathematics, nor from physics. I ban only 
> infinity from the ontological terms. I ban only infinity in the 
> metaphysics/theology. (Even God is not ontological, like in Proclus or 
> Plotinus theology).
>
> Have you understand the post on Church’s thesis. You might tell me as this 
> will help me to see how to proceed to make you grasp all this.
>
> Bruno
>

You only ban infinity from ontological terms? I have no idea what this 
means. I do know you start with the natural numbers, presumably an infinite 
set and existing in some Platonic realm. So I have no idea about your 
aversion or denial of infinity. As for the Church's thesis, I have set 
aside a copy of Chrome with several relevant topics which I see as 
prerequisites to that understanding including, for example, Cantor's 
theorem, but have yet to get into it seriously due to personal issues and 
computer problems in Russia and Ukraine (the latter now solved). But when I 
do, I'll get back to you. AG

>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> but even the induction axioms are too strong. 
>>
>> Pragmatically, sets and typed lambda terms or typed combinators can 
>> indeed be very useful. 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - pt
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> 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.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 2:20:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Oct 2018, at 14:20, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:47:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
>> set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)
>>
>> (I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)
>>
>> *The set-theoretic multiverse*
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223
>>
>> Joel David Hamkins
>> @JDHamkins
>> Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow 
>> in Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
>> http://jdh.hamkins.org
>>
>>
>> The math is interesting, and could be of some use, but it is a priori far 
>> too much Aristotelian to be coherent with the mechanist hypothesis. That 
>> should follow “easily” from the result described in most of my papers on 
>> this subject. The author does not seem aware of the mind-body problem, 
>> which put extreme constraints on what the physical reality can come from. 
>> Even Peano arithmetic, although integral part of the notion of observer, is 
>> too much rich for the ontology, where not only the axiom of infinity is too 
>> strong, 
>>
>
> *Since you want to banish the concept of infinity from mathematics, how 
> would you define, say, the limit of an "infinite" series? How would you 
> even discuss this series in the context of finite mathematics? AG*
>
>
>
> Good question.
>
> The answer is not simple technically. The point is that using only the 
> theory Q (Robinson Arithmetic) or SK (the combinators), I can define the 
> universal (Turing, Church) machine, and the concept of infinity will be a 
> tool used by them in their mathematics.
>
> I do not ban anything from mathematics, nor from physics. I ban only 
> infinity from the ontological terms. I ban only infinity in the 
> metaphysics/theology. (Even God is not ontological, like in Proclus or 
> Plotinus theology).
>
> Have you understand the post on Church’s thesis. You might tell me as this 
> will help me to see how to proceed to make you grasp all this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

What do you think of bounded arithmetic and other "finitist" approaches?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_arithmetic
see bibliography: http://jeanpaulvanbendegem.be/home/papers/strict-finitism/

Computable real analysis (one can teach computable calculus instead of 
"conventional" calculus) is essentially finitist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis

One can formulate the *Axiom of Infinity* 
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity ] in a type of bounded 
set theory (Jan Mycielski [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mycielski ], 
described in 
https://books.google.com/books/about/Understanding_the_Infinite.html?id=GvGqRYifGpMC
 
]. What results is an "ontology" of bigger and bigger finite sets of 
numbers with gaps in them.


 - pt

-- 
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.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Oct 2018, at 14:20, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:47:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
>> set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)
>> 
>> (I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)
>> 
>> The set-theoretic multiverse
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223 
>> 
>> Joel David Hamkins
>> @JDHamkins
>> Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow in 
>> Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
>> http://jdh.hamkins.org 
>> 
> 
> The math is interesting, and could be of some use, but it is a priori far too 
> much Aristotelian to be coherent with the mechanist hypothesis. That should 
> follow “easily” from the result described in most of my papers on this 
> subject. The author does not seem aware of the mind-body problem, which put 
> extreme constraints on what the physical reality can come from. Even Peano 
> arithmetic, although integral part of the notion of observer, is too much 
> rich for the ontology, where not only the axiom of infinity is too strong,
> 
> Since you want to banish the concept of infinity from mathematics, how would 
> you define, say, the limit of an "infinite" series? How would you even 
> discuss this series in the context of finite mathematics? AG


Good question.

The answer is not simple technically. The point is that using only the theory Q 
(Robinson Arithmetic) or SK (the combinators), I can define the universal 
(Turing, Church) machine, and the concept of infinity will be a tool used by 
them in their mathematics.

I do not ban anything from mathematics, nor from physics. I ban only infinity 
from the ontological terms. I ban only infinity in the metaphysics/theology. 
(Even God is not ontological, like in Proclus or Plotinus theology).

Have you understand the post on Church’s thesis. You might tell me as this will 
help me to see how to proceed to make you grasp all this.

Bruno





>  
> but even the induction axioms are too strong. 
> 
> Pragmatically, sets and typed lambda terms or typed combinators can indeed be 
> very useful. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> - pt
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> 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 
> .

-- 
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.