Re: How Mathematics Meets the World, by Tim Maudlin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 12/7/2019 1:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can only
alter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and 
will not change at our command.


It is generally overlooked that the above is not strictly true. Physics 
has often moved phenomena from the category of "explained by science" to 
"accident of nature" and sometimes back.  For example Kepler thought the 
number of planets should be a consequence of natural law.  Newton 
dropped this from his theory.  The shape of continents was considered a 
geological accident...until Wegner showed they came from the breakup of 
a single continent.  The world may not change, but the part we take to 
be "law like" and the part we consider "accident of nature" are flexible.


Brent

--
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/ba2e528b-4387-fcb6-9487-a2ac8ad641d6%40verizon.net.

Panpsychist emergence

[Philip Thrift]

I am now - it seems - in the category "panpsychist friends & colleagues".

https://twitter.com/smellosopher/status/1203343875173158913 

[image: Image may contain: text]





@philipthrift

-- 
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/75da76b4-7d7c-4ef5-81ec-a58b75efee4b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:43 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> that very silly theory can not say who that shadowy mysterious person
>> called Mr.You is,
>
>
> *> The mechanist hypothesis assures that both copy have the right to be
> qualified as you.*
>

So yesterday before the duplication when there was only one it would be
idiotic to ask which one of the one will see Moscow!


> >> nor can it say what the correct answer to a obvious question turned
>> out to be, "what one and only one city did Mr.You end up seeing??”
>
>
>
> *> Indeed. That is the point. That is the first person indeterminacy,*
>

I agree that is the point, and that's exactly why first person
indeterminacy is complete gibberish,  as rational a concept as asking " How
many blitzphits will a klogknee have tomorrow?"

*> that you are using each time you defend Everett.*
>

Yes, with Everett if you ask me which version of me will be the man that
sees the coin come up heads when the coin is tossed tomorrow I will say it
will be the version of me that sees heads. And yes the answer is banal, but
then it was a banal question.

>> It can't say what the correct answer was *EVEN AFTER* the "experiment"
>> is long over.
>
>
>
> *> That is where you forget to put yourself in the shoes of the guy making
> the experience. *
>

It's physically impossible to put myself in the shoes of the guys having
the experiences because 4 feet are involved and I only have 2, there are 2
guys having *A* first person experience.

*> After the experiment, it is easy to understand that both know very well
> the answer, *
>

Forget the answer, both before and after the "experiment" nobody even knew
what the hell the question was!

>> So the outcome of the "experiment"  has produced precisely ZERO bits of
>> new information because everybody already know the man who saw Moscow would
>> become the Moscow Man and the man who say Washington would become the
>> Washington Man.
>
>
> > *But that is tautological.*
>

*DUH,* *I KNOW!* But it's your scenario not mine, something that is not an
experiment and something that contains very little thought.

*> After the experience, each copy get one bit of information.*
>

Before the experience everybody and everything already knew that the man
who saw Moscow would be the Moscow Man and the man who saw Washington would
become the Washington Man, so after the experience everybody received
precisely ZERO bits of new information.

*> Your use of matter is similar to the pseudo-explanation “God did it”.*


And that is my cue to say goodnight because i know from experience you
never say anything of interest after you invoke that word.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1AC%3DbhT9k2w1NjbJvE0MAvQ%2BGEQebRFX21itDucO0bkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 5:04:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:50 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>> But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll?
>>
>
> I think my correct name, Bruce Kellett, appears on every post I make. I am 
> not anonymous, and do not seek to hide my identity.
>
>> You have no link to a profile, website, CV, or anything else that I have 
>> ever seen. 
>>
>
> Do you really need an internet profile to be a real person? I am long 
> retired, so none of my professional work is available on line.
>
>> It's like all the anonymous posters in social media - no one knows who 
>> they are.
>>
>
> You judge by the content of the posts. If I have ever engaged in trolling 
> behaviour, then point to that before you start trolling me.
>
> Bruce
>



I have never done anything like that.

And I'm an open book. https://twitter.com/philipthrift

@philipthrift

 

-- 
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/6d757dbb-6a33-4eae-85ad-770a33134c22%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 5:09:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:50:55 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> People can hold several different theories about different areas of 
>>> science at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by Maudlin 
>>> on space-time theory does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, 
>>> which concerned quantum mechanics. Your approach is sometimes known as 
>>> 'poisoning the well', or an ad hominem attack -- bring up some irrelevant 
>>> criticism of a person in order to discredit their views on something quite 
>>> different.
>>>
>>> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll?
>>
>> You have no link to a profile, website, CV, or anything else that I have 
>> ever seen. 
>>
>> It's like all the anonymous posters in social media - no one knows who 
>> they are.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>  Also nowhere have I "ad hominem" Maudlin. I agree with him:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/HEFlTQYIBoQ/3hDx__qMAgAJ
>
>
> @philipthrift
>



I should say I agree with his essay *How Mathematics Meets the World *in 
general - his approach. 

You were the one that bought up Tim Maudlin. So no one should read what his 
theory is?

@philipthrift

-- 
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/d0855857-ccc4-4443-bbde-968be321f751%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:50:55 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> People can hold several different theories about different areas of 
>> science at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by Maudlin 
>> on space-time theory does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, 
>> which concerned quantum mechanics. Your approach is sometimes known as 
>> 'poisoning the well', or an ad hominem attack -- bring up some irrelevant 
>> criticism of a person in order to discredit their views on something quite 
>> different.
>>
>> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll?
>
> You have no link to a profile, website, CV, or anything else that I have 
> ever seen. 
>
> It's like all the anonymous posters in social media - no one knows who 
> they are.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>  
>

 Also nowhere have I "ad hominem" Maudlin. I agree with him:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/HEFlTQYIBoQ/3hDx__qMAgAJ


@philipthrift

-- 
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/fac7a295-c213-401f-b5dd-95cf7d7b1dda%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:50 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll?
>

I think my correct name, Bruce Kellett, appears on every post I make. I am
not anonymous, and do not seek to hide my identity.

> You have no link to a profile, website, CV, or anything else that I have
> ever seen.
>

Do you really need an internet profile to be a real person? I am long
retired, so none of my professional work is available on line.

> It's like all the anonymous posters in social media - no one knows who
> they are.
>

You judge by the content of the posts. If I have ever engaged in trolling
behaviour, then point to that before you start trolling me.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLTu-q%3DtM3fa4%3DNFJ8F16AOdAS8-8idG-_82NjYZFiZURA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 8:21 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
 On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein 
>> was wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet 
>> which 
>> is a superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is 
>> no 
>> actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or 
>> some 
>> similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. 
>> There 
>> is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot 
>> wave 
>> theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown, 
>> position at all times.
>>
>
> I have come across an interesting video
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY
>
> in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of 
> others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their 
> different 
> perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting, 
> given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment 
> starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have 
> some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20 
> minute mark).
>
> No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear 
> the different perspectives.
>
> Bruce
>




 Not sure what this is.

>>>
>>> So why did you raise it? You have a habit of throwing irrelevancies 
>>> around, Phil. It is not an endearing trait.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>> It's at the basis of* Tim Maudlin'*s interpretation.
>>
>
> Maudlin's interpretation of what? It does not appear to be relevant to his 
> views on the ontology of quantum mechanics. So it would appear to be 
> irrelevant to the short talk by Maudlin that I referenced.
>
>> "Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of others talk 
>> about interpretations of quantum mechanics from *their* different 
>> perspective."
>>
>>
>> You brought up *Tim Maudlin*'s theory. I didn't. Apparently you don't 
>> know anything about Maudlin's theory. (Which is a trait of yours.)
>>
>
> People can hold several different theories about different areas of 
> science at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by Maudlin 
> on space-time theory does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, 
> which concerned quantum mechanics. Your approach is sometimes known as 
> 'poisoning the well', or an ad hominem attack -- bring up some irrelevant 
> criticism of a person in order to discredit their views on something quite 
> different.
>
> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil.
>
> Bruce
>





But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll?

You have no link to a profile, website, CV, or anything else that I have 
ever seen. 

It's like all the anonymous posters in social media - no one knows who they 
are.

@philipthrift


 

-- 
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/951ddd18-63b0-4ac5-a3c3-b2992c3c422f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 8:21 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

 On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

>
> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein
> was wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which
> is a superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is 
> no
> actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or 
> some
> similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. 
> There
> is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot wave
> theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown,
> position at all times.
>

 I have come across an interesting video

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY

 in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of
 others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their different
 perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting,
 given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment
 starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have
 some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20
 minute mark).

 No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear
 the different perspectives.

 Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure what this is.
>>>
>>
>> So why did you raise it? You have a habit of throwing irrelevancies
>> around, Phil. It is not an endearing trait.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
> It's at the basis of* Tim Maudlin'*s interpretation.
>

Maudlin's interpretation of what? It does not appear to be relevant to his
views on the ontology of quantum mechanics. So it would appear to be
irrelevant to the short talk by Maudlin that I referenced.

> "Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of others talk
> about interpretations of quantum mechanics from *their* different
> perspective."
>
>
> You brought up *Tim Maudlin*'s theory. I didn't. Apparently you don't
> know anything about Maudlin's theory. (Which is a trait of yours.)
>

People can hold several different theories about different areas of science
at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by Maudlin on
space-time theory does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, which
concerned quantum mechanics. Your approach is sometimes known as 'poisoning
the well', or an ad hominem attack -- bring up some irrelevant criticism of
a person in order to discredit their views on something quite different.

You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLS-hDgBnT6hpx9Lkc%2BM2ussrOtY6a5h7V6CnyyYAz-vaA%40mail.gmail.com.

How Mathematics Meets the World, by Tim Maudlin

[Philip Thrift]

*How Mathematics Meets the World, by Tim Maudlin*

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2318

Essay Abstract

The most obvious explanation for the power of mathematics as the language 
of physics is that the physical world has the right sort of structure to be 
represented mathematically. But what this in turn means depends on the 
mathematical language being used. I first briefly review some of the 
physical characteristics required in order to unambiguously describe a 
physical situation using integers, and then take up the much more difficult 
question of what characteristics are required to describe a situation using 
geometrical concepts. In the case of geometry, and particularly for the 
most basic form of geometry— topology—this is not clear. I discuss a new 
mathematical language for describing geometrical structure called the 
Theory of Linear Structures. This mathematical language is founded on a 
different primitive concept than standard topology, on the line rather than 
the open set. I explain how some other geometrical concepts can be defined 
in terms of lines, and how in a Relativistic setting time can be understood 
as the feature of physical reality that generates all geometrical facts. 
Whereas it is often said that Relativity spatializes time, from the 
perspective of the Theory of Linear Structures we can see instead that 
Relativity temporalizes space: all of the geometry flows from temporal 
structure. The Theory of Linear Structures also provides a mathematical 
language in which the fact that time is a fundamentally directed structure 
can be easily represented.



https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Maudlin_How_Mathematics_Mee.pdf

...
The standard answer derives from the standard mathematical tool used to 
describe the most basic geometrical structure of a space. If that 
mathematical tool, that mathematical language, is to provide an accurate 
characterization of the geometry physical space or physical space-time then 
physical space-time must have a structure corresponding to the fundamental 
concept in the mathematics. And a different mathematical language, built on 
a different primitive concept, requires that physical space-time have a 
different structure if it is to be accurately described. I will argue that 
standard geometry has been built on the wrong conceptual foundation to 
apply optimally to space-time. I will sketch an alternative geometrical 
language, and explain how it could directly reflect the structure of the 
physical world.
...
Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can only
alter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and will 
not change at our command. But we can change the mathematical language used 
to formulate physics, and we can even seek to construct new mathematical 
languages that are better suited to represent the physical structure of the 
world. The Theory of Linear Structures, whatever else its virtues, provides 
and example of how this can be done. If it is correct, then we might see 
how the time itself creates the geometry of space-time, and also makes 
space-time exactly the sort of thing that is well described using this 
mathematical language.


@philipthrift

-- 
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/c34b6c62-19d4-4216-85a0-d8b1f076edd7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett  
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was 
 wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which is a 
 superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is no 
 actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or 
 some 
 similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. 
 There 
 is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot wave 
 theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown, 
 position at all times.

>>>
>>> I have come across an interesting video
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY
>>>
>>> in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of 
>>> others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their different 
>>> perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting, 
>>> given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment 
>>> starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have 
>>> some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20 
>>> minute mark).
>>>
>>> No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear the 
>>> different perspectives.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>>



>>
>> Not sure what this is.
>>
>
> So why did you raise it? You have a habit of throwing irrelevancies 
> around, Phil. It is not an endearing trait.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
It's at the basis of* Tim Maudlin'*s interpretation.

"Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of others talk 
about interpretations of quantum mechanics from *their* different 
perspective."


You brought up *Tim Maudlin*'s theory. I didn't. Apparently you don't know 
anything about Maudlin's theory. (Which is a trait of yours.)

@philipthrift
 

-- 
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/0fdd61a0-0efc-4faa-abcd-31a72d558199%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was
>>> wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which is a
>>> superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is no
>>> actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or some
>>> similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. There
>>> is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot wave
>>> theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown,
>>> position at all times.
>>>
>>
>> I have come across an interesting video
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY
>>
>> in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of
>> others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their different
>> perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting,
>> given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment
>> starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have
>> some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20
>> minute mark).
>>
>> No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear the
>> different perspectives.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
>
> Not sure what this is.
>

So why did you raise it? You have a habit of throwing irrelevancies around,
Phil. It is not an endearing trait.

Bruce




>
> *Tim Maudlin - Linear Structures*
>
> https://academic.oup.com/aristoteliansupp/article-abstract/84/1/63/1780015
>
> The standard mathematical account of the sub-metrical geometry of a space
> employs topology, whose foundational concept is the open set. This proves
> to be an unhappy choice for discrete spaces, and offers no insight into the
> physical origin of geometrical structure. I outline an alternative, the
> Theory of Linear Structures, whose foundational concept is the line.
> Application to Relativistic space-time reveals that the whole geometry of
> space-time derives from temporal structure. In this sense, instead of
> spatializing time, Relativity temporalizes space.
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219815000842 :
>
> Causal set theory and the theory of linear structures (which has recently
> been developed by Tim Maudlin as an alternative to standard topology) share
> some of their main motivations. In view of that, I raise and answer the
> question how these two theories are related to each other and to standard
> topology. I show that causal set theory can be embedded into Maudlin׳s more
> general framework and I characterise what Maudlin׳s topological concepts
> boil down to when applied to discrete linear structures that correspond to
> causal sets. Moreover, I show that all topological aspects of causal sets
> that can be described in Maudlin׳s theory can also be described in the
> framework of standard topology. Finally, I discuss why these results are
> relevant for evaluating Maudlin׳s theory. The value of this theory depends
> crucially on whether it is true that (a) its conceptual framework is as
> expressive as that of standard topology when it comes to describing
> well-known continuous as well as discrete models of spacetime and (b) it is
> even more expressive or fruitful when it comes to analysing topological
> aspects of discrete structures that are intended as models of spacetime. On
> one hand, my theorems support (a). The theory is rich enough to incorporate
> causal set theory and its definitions of topological notions yield a
> plausible outcome in the case of causal sets. On the other hand, the
> results undermine (b). Standard topology, too, has the conceptual resources
> to capture those topological aspects of causal sets that are analysable
> within Maudlin׳s framework. This fact poses a challenge for the proponents
> of Maudlin׳s theory to prove it fruitful.
>
>
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1db1/0fc014a2182a572ad11f4253df26e6c54f0f.pdf
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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/CAFxXSLRB5%2Bg7e-MOG1Oq9VNhWrt%2BSMFkVJPxZaz72DThBQre-w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was 
>> wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which is a 
>> superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is no 
>> actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or some 
>> similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. There 
>> is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot wave 
>> theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown, 
>> position at all times.
>>
>
> I have come across an interesting video
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY
>
> in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of 
> others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their different 
> perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting, 
> given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment 
> starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have 
> some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20 
> minute mark).
>
> No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear the 
> different perspectives.
>
> Bruce
>




Not sure what this is.

*Tim Maudlin - Linear Structures*

https://academic.oup.com/aristoteliansupp/article-abstract/84/1/63/1780015

The standard mathematical account of the sub-metrical geometry of a space 
employs topology, whose foundational concept is the open set. This proves 
to be an unhappy choice for discrete spaces, and offers no insight into the 
physical origin of geometrical structure. I outline an alternative, the 
Theory of Linear Structures, whose foundational concept is the line. 
Application to Relativistic space-time reveals that the whole geometry of 
space-time derives from temporal structure. In this sense, instead of 
spatializing time, Relativity temporalizes space.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219815000842 :

Causal set theory and the theory of linear structures (which has recently 
been developed by Tim Maudlin as an alternative to standard topology) share 
some of their main motivations. In view of that, I raise and answer the 
question how these two theories are related to each other and to standard 
topology. I show that causal set theory can be embedded into Maudlin׳s more 
general framework and I characterise what Maudlin׳s topological concepts 
boil down to when applied to discrete linear structures that correspond to 
causal sets. Moreover, I show that all topological aspects of causal sets 
that can be described in Maudlin׳s theory can also be described in the 
framework of standard topology. Finally, I discuss why these results are 
relevant for evaluating Maudlin׳s theory. The value of this theory depends 
crucially on whether it is true that (a) its conceptual framework is as 
expressive as that of standard topology when it comes to describing 
well-known continuous as well as discrete models of spacetime and (b) it is 
even more expressive or fruitful when it comes to analysing topological 
aspects of discrete structures that are intended as models of spacetime. On 
one hand, my theorems support (a). The theory is rich enough to incorporate 
causal set theory and its definitions of topological notions yield a 
plausible outcome in the case of causal sets. On the other hand, the 
results undermine (b). Standard topology, too, has the conceptual resources 
to capture those topological aspects of causal sets that are analysable 
within Maudlin׳s framework. This fact poses a challenge for the proponents 
of Maudlin׳s theory to prove it fruitful.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1db1/0fc014a2182a572ad11f4253df26e6c54f0f.pdf

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/66858055-225c-44df-8bd8-9e3be2b685fc%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Frege, Wittgenstein on linguistical truth

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 6:57:54 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:48:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/6/2019 4:05 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 5:42:13 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 

 On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:59:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>
>
>
>
> https://philosophynow.org/issues/106/Wittgenstein_Frege_and_The_Context_Principle
>  
>
>
> Frege was equally concerned to reject one kind of account of 
> mathematical objectivity – the view that mathematical statements are made 
> true by reference to abstract mathematical objects that are in some way 
> real, even though we can’t see, touch or feel them. 
>
> According to the Context Principle, the basic unit of sense is the 
> proposition, or sentence. The sentence is the smallest unit of language 
> which can be used to say anything at all. The meaningfulness of names and 
> predicates is a matter of the place they occupy in the sentence, and also 
> whether the sentence is true. Whether or not a name refers to an object, 
> then, is a matter of the contribution the name makes to the truth of the 
> whole sentence.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This leads me to appreciate on some level why Feynman called this 
 philosofuzzy.

 LC 

>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why Feyerabend (who I think was together with Feynman when he 
>>> came to some conferences in Berkeley) said 
>>>
>>> The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has 
>>> had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the 
>>> *Feynman*s , the 
>>> Schwingers , etc., may 
>>> be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than 
>>> Bohr , Einstein 
>>> , Schrödinger 
>>> , Boltzmann 
>>> , Mach 
>>>  and so on. *But they are 
>>> uncivilized savages: they lack in philosophical depth.*
>>>
>>> So true.
>>>
>>>
>>> Depth is no virtue when you're just muddying the water.
>>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>>
>>> Each philosopher knows a lot but, as a whole, philosophers don't know 
>>> anything. If they did, they would be scientists.
>>>   --- Ludwig Krippahl
>>>
>>> "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to 
>>> seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one 
>>> will believe it."
>>>--- Bertrand Russell
>>>
>>> Philosophie ist der systematische Missbrauch einer eigens zu
>>> diesem Zweck entwickelten Terminologie."
>>>  ---Wolfgang Pauli
>>>
>>> "The philosophy of science is just about as useful to scientists
>>> as ornithology is to birds."
>>>   --- Steven Weinberg
>>>
>>> So is Feyerabend so sure his depth is more profound than theirs?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What some scientist calls "philosofuzzy" (Frege, Wittgenstein, Quine) 
>> perhaps is to hide their own fuzzy philosophy. (I can't find a reference 
>> for Feynman ever using that term though).
>>
>> *Physicists Are Philosophers, Too*
>> Victor J. Stenger
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ 
>> 
>>
>> What we are seeing here is not a recent phenomenon. In his 1992 book 
>> Dreams of a Final Theory, Nobel laureate *Steven Weinberg* has a whole 
>> chapter entitled “Against Philosophy.” Referring to the famous observation 
>> of Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner about “the unreasonable 
>> effectiveness of mathematics,” Weinberg puzzles about “the unreasonable 
>> ineffectiveness of philosophy.”
>>
>> Weinberg does not dismiss all of philosophy, just the philosophy of 
>> science, noting that its arcane discussions interest few scientists. He 
>> points out the problems with the philosophy of positivism, although he 
>> agrees that it played a role in the early development of both relativity 
>> and quantum mechanics. He argues that positivism did more harm than good, 
>> however, writing, “The positivist concentration on observables like 
>> particle positions and momenta has stood in the way of a ‘realist’ 
>> interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the wave function is the 
>> representative of physical reality.”
>>
>> Weinberg and [others], in fact, are expressing a platonic view of reality 
>> commonly held by many theoretical physicists and