Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 2:59:30 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
> I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might 
> have to send me the paper with this development.
>
>
> I will do that.
>
>
>
> The equation between quantum states and units of information is through 
> the von Neumann quantum entropy and its parallel with Shannon;s formula. 
> Transitions between states by interactions are then in a way modeled as a 
> sort of computation or algorithmic-like process. I am not particularly 
> given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though.
>
>
>
Thanks for these references. I have a bit of a queue of papers yet to read.

LC

 

>
> Mechanism makes this impossible. The physical universe is an emerging, in 
> the mind of the universal machine, of a *non* computable first person 
> (plural) pattern.
>
> At each instant (indexical computational step) you have an infinity of 
> computations (arithmetical concept) going through you state. To predict any 
> first person experience (like seing a the position of a needle on some 
> device), you need “in principle” to look at all computations going through 
> that state, and that can be shown to be not computable a priori.
>
> A slogan could be: IF I am a machine, then what I am not is NOT a machine. 
>
> Most attributes of a machine (even non universal) are not 
> computable/decidable. Already, the set of programs computing any functions 
> is not a decidable set (Rice theorem), and no person-machine can know which 
> machine support her, or which computations access her.
> (This is easy to prove, but is also rather obvious if you thing to program 
> factorial using some partially undecided subroutine).
>
> I will send you paper soon. Meanwhile, you can consult my sane04 summary 
> papers, 
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
>
> and if your institution follows some journal, you might get them from 
> herebelow:
>
> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. 
> Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157
>
> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993
>
> B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th 
> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, 
> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>  (sane04)
>
> Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
> Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, 
> Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., 
> Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, 
> Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. 
> Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
> (http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf)
>
> Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in 
> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132
>
> Marchal B.  Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, 
> Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
> (available at http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/)
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/b8925f1f-c814-465c-a589-00b72395109fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 00:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/10/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> How could a derivation of physics have nothing to do with physics? You are 
>> right, physics describes some reality through number relation (like F = ma,  
>> F = GmM/r^2, …), but with Mechanism, those physical (ov-bservable, locally 
>> predictable) number relations must be explained in a sort of Darwinian way 
>> from the “number”s dream” (which we know to be all realised in arithmetic).
> 
> A precis of an "everything" theory.  What we observe must be as predicted by 
> the theory (otherwise it's invalidated). And the theory predicts everything 
> (therefore it's useless, but can't be invalidated).

The theory (the physics derived from machine’s introspection) does not predict 
everything. It already rules out all classical physics, and predict a quantum 
physics with “many-histories”, and a non standard quantum statistics. It 
suggests a symmetrical important reversible core. So, on the contrary, it 
predicts something completely specific, but with a multiverse sort of shape. 
What we observed is exactly what is predicted, until now. 

Of course to do physics with the machine physics would be like to do a pizza 
using superstring theory. The goal is not a goal in physical science, but to 
get a theory of consciousness (and everything) compatible with the 
observations. 

Bruno



> 
> 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/ecc34e54-0b0f-83e6-8795-833ed79e78a7%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/EFDA8F73-1478-4C03-B524-42E88B413EE5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and 
>> events.
> 
> 
> I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with the 
> scientific method, it might be better to not postulate objects and events, as 
> this seems to presuppose already Aristotelian theology.
> 
> Np need to military science. Science can study anything, propose theories 
> about anything, as long as it gives mans of testing the theories, and 
> evaluating their benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science that is 
>> fine, but it in of itself does not give physics.
> 
> 
> Have you read my papers? I can prove that IF we assume Mechanism, then 
> physics has to be justified entirely by the machine theology (by which I mean 
> the study of the intensional variant of Solovay’s logic G*, as I have 
> explained sometimes).
> 
> 
> 
> I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might have 
> to send me the paper with this development.

I will do that.


> 
> The equation between quantum states and units of information is through the 
> von Neumann quantum entropy and its parallel with Shannon;s formula. 
> Transitions between states by interactions are then in a way modeled as a 
> sort of computation or algorithmic-like process. I am not particularly given 
> to the idea the universe is an algorithm though.


Mechanism makes this impossible. The physical universe is an emerging, in the 
mind of the universal machine, of a *non* computable first person (plural) 
pattern.

At each instant (indexical computational step) you have an infinity of 
computations (arithmetical concept) going through you state. To predict any 
first person experience (like seing a the position of a needle on some device), 
you need “in principle” to look at all computations going through that state, 
and that can be shown to be not computable a priori.

A slogan could be: IF I am a machine, then what I am not is NOT a machine. 

Most attributes of a machine (even non universal) are not computable/decidable. 
Already, the set of programs computing any functions is not a decidable set 
(Rice theorem), and no person-machine can know which machine support her, or 
which computations access her.
(This is easy to prove, but is also rather obvious if you thing to program 
factorial using some partially undecided subroutine).

I will send you paper soon. Meanwhile, you can consult my sane04 summary 
papers, 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 



and if your institution follows some journal, you might get them from herebelow:

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
(sane04)

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of 
Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi 
A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on 
Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di 
Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
(http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf 
)

Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics 
and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132

Marchal B.  Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo 
Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
(available at http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/)





> 
> LC
>  
> 
> 
>> Feynman made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
>> interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
>> activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a 
>> sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to 
>> reality.
> 
> Like brain and universal machine. Yes, they dream a lot, but from their own 
> perspective, they belong to infinities of computations, and that is what we 
> observe below pur 

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:25, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:15:55 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
>>  
>> 
>>  :
>> 
>> Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?
>> A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they share 
>> a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since spacelike-locality 
>> is not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it is possible for 
>> these states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected in the multiway 
>> causal graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is the essence of 
>> quantum entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the context of Bell’s 
>> theorem.
>> 
>> 
> 
> If that graph structure is the correct explanation of the entanglement, that 
> graphe structure must be justified bt the observable-mode of self-reference, 
> to be able to distinguish what is quanta and what is qualia.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> I indicated in the above message on Aug 6, 2020, 1:04:48 PM (4 days ago) how 
> these graphs might pertain to entanglements. This appears somewhat 
> communsurate with what Wolfram is saying. 
> 
> I am not terribly worried about qualia, and at this time tend to shy away 
> from invoking consciousness in QM.


Where we assume Mechanism/computationalism (i.e.Descartes made mathematically 
precise through Turing), the quantum is explained from a theory of 
consciousness. It is the other way around than those who try to explain 
Consciousness from the quantum.

Actually, I found the MW by myself exclusively from mechanism (and amoeba’s 
observation), but at that time, I thought that I was refuting computationalism. 
It took me to discover Everett’s paper to realise that the physicists did 
already suspect that the physical reality might be multiple (which is just 
obvious with mechanism as long as you are OK that 2+2=4: that is already proved 
implicitly in Gödel 1931 paper).

Here, all you need is the characterisation of consciousness as something true, 
indubitable, immediately knowable, non provable and non definable (without 
invoking the notion of “truth”).

With this, all introspective machine discover “consciousness”, and the (unique 
precise physics) which go with it, and thank to the QM-MWI, we got striking 
confirmation of that physics. It took me 30 years more to get the quantum 
logic, and normally it is a “type 0” à-la von Neumann quantum logic, from which 
a unique measure and integral must be derived.

Physics becomes a subbranch of the theology/psychology of the universal Turing 
machine/number.

Now, this physics has no reason to replace the empirical physics, but its 
advantage is that it explain the quanta, the qualia, and their relation. It 
shows also that in theology or metaphysics, we need to come back to Plato type 
of theology. The Aristotelian are recovered as local approximation.

Bruno





> 
> LC
> 
>  
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
>> is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is 
>> this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N 
>> entanglements.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, It 
>> is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
>> programmer's manual.
>> 
>> Wolfram Physics Project Functions
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page 
>> 
>> 
>> Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>> 
>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
>> be written as programs in this library/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/324c39f9-6bd4-42da-bcb4-bc01c6091c9en%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

"I am not particularly given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though."
- LC

What tbeory of theoretical physics today (GR, QM, ...) *cannot be replicated* 
as (simulation) programs running on supercomputers (like the ones at 
universities and national labs)?

What is a single example in physics for which this is the caae?

@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/0b6e2294-0b58-4032-997d-5aaf4b47bb2ao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/10/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How could a derivation of physics have nothing to do with physics? You 
are right, physics describes some reality through number relation 
(like F = ma,  F = GmM/r^2, …), but with Mechanism, those physical 
(ov-bservable, locally predictable) number relations must be explained 
in a sort of Darwinian way from the “number”s dream” (which we know to 
be all realised in arithmetic).


A precis of an "everything" theory.  What we observe */must/* be as 
predicted by the theory (otherwise it's invalidated). And the theory 
predicts everything (therefore it's useless, but can't be invalidated).


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/ecc34e54-0b0f-83e6-8795-833ed79e78a7%40verizon.net.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects 
> and events.
>
>
>
> I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with 
> the scientific method, it might be better to not postulate objects and 
> events, as this seems to presuppose already Aristotelian theology.
>
> Np need to military science. Science can study anything, propose theories 
> about anything, as long as it gives mans of testing the theories, and 
> evaluating their benefits.
>
>
>
>
> If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science that is 
> fine, but it in of itself does not give physics.
>
>
>
> Have you read my papers? I can prove that IF we assume Mechanism, then 
> physics has to be justified entirely by the machine theology (by which I 
> mean the study of the intensional variant of Solovay’s logic G*, as I have 
> explained sometimes).
>
>
>
I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might have 
to send me the paper with this development.

The equation between quantum states and units of information is through the 
von Neumann quantum entropy and its parallel with Shannon;s formula. 
Transitions between states by interactions are then in a way modeled as a 
sort of computation or algorithmic-like process. I am not particularly 
given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though.

LC
 

>
>
> Feynman made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
> interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
> activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a 
> sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to 
> reality.
>
>
> Like brain and universal machine. Yes, they dream a lot, but from their 
> own perspective, they belong to infinities of computations, and that is 
> what we observe below pur substitution level. 
> There is always some context with the basic reality, as a computation is a 
> very particular number relation. You need a reality to have computations, 
> but the physical reality is not an ontological reality: it becomes a first 
> person plural observable by infinities of numbers. That is testable, and 
> indeed it predicted both the “MWI” of physics, and the quantum formalism, 
> at least up to now.
> The evidences accumulated that the physical observable are the canonical 
> observable of neopythagoreanism. 
> In fact, there are no evidence for a primary matter or for physicalism. 
> The Renaissance has been only half-enlightenment: science will resume when 
> we will also doubt in the fundamental (philosophy, religion) domain. 
>
> You can compare with EPR. When I was young I was told that I would waste 
> my time in studying such philosophical papers, but Bell contradicted this 
> already and Shimony understood that what is thought as belonging to 
> philosophy can become science later, as both theory and experimentation are 
> improved. Same here: mechanism in theology is completely testable (that is: 
> refutable), so we will see, soon or later, if Nature contradicts Mechanism. 
> The truth itself can never be known as such (provably in the Mechanist 
> theories).
>
> Bruno
>

-- 
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/ba408533-ee89-408c-8012-79ce3835502bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:15:55 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
>
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
>  :
>
> Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?
>
> A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they 
> share a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since 
> spacelike-locality is not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it 
> is possible for these states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected 
> in the multiway causal graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is 
> the essence of quantum entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the 
> context of Bell’s theorem.
>
>
> If that graph structure is the correct explanation of the entanglement, 
> that graphe structure must be justified bt the observable-mode of 
> self-reference, to be able to distinguish what is quanta and what is qualia.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I indicated in the above message on Aug 6, 2020, 1:04:48 PM (4 days ago) 
how these graphs might pertain to entanglements. This appears somewhat 
communsurate with what Wolfram is saying. 

I am not terribly worried about qualia, and at this time tend to shy away 
from invoking consciousness in QM.

LC

 

> @philipthrift
>
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
>> anything is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My 
>> point is this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from 
>> large N entanglements.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at 
>>> all, It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end 
>>> a programmer's manual.
>>>
>>> *Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page
>>>
>>> *Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>>
>>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>>>
>>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is 
>>> to be written as programs in this library/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/324c39f9-6bd4-42da-bcb4-bc01c6091c9en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Aug 2020, at 12:56, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the view of the physicist as a kind of religious mystic, who 
> contemplates a physics outside of language, and some "truth" out there they 
> will never find.
> 
> But all there is to write/speak with is language, 
> 
> e.g.
> 
> R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G 
> \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}
> 
> [ cf. https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php ]
> 
>  and how different vocabularies understood pragmatically might be translated 
> into— or reduced to— one another
> 
> and playing the games of language
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism#Wittgenstein_and_language_games 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift



You have always three levels:

1) a language (grammar)
2) a theory (axioms, formula, theorems)
3) an intended reality supposed to give sense to the theorems

By incompleteness, “3)” is never entirely definable (still less provable) in 
the language or in the theory itself.

With mechanism, we cannot avoid the need to postulate at least one universal 
machinery, and then, all the rest must be deduce from self-reference if we want 
get the correct distinctions and relationships between sharable quanta and the 
private qualia.

Bruno





> 
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and 
> events. If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science 
> that is fine, but it in of itself does not give physics. Feynman made some 
> note of this. I found this little science fiction clip interesting along 
> these lines. It is about a dormant computer system activating an attack 
> sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a sense "won the war." The 
> machines activate algorithms with no context to reality.
> 
> https://youtu.be/IjJmTeBSEzU   
> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9dd12a9e-566f-4229-a952-1ac6edae29a0n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/1AE06373-0B7C-4D52-8849-9BB0B8BA31D9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and 
> events.


I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with the 
scientific method, it might be better to not postulate objects and events, as 
this seems to presuppose already Aristotelian theology.

Np need to military science. Science can study anything, propose theories about 
anything, as long as it gives mans of testing the theories, and evaluating 
their benefits.




> If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science that is 
> fine, but it in of itself does not give physics.


Have you read my papers? I can prove that IF we assume Mechanism, then physics 
has to be justified entirely by the machine theology (by which I mean the study 
of the intensional variant of Solovay’s logic G*, as I have explained 
sometimes).




> Feynman made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
> interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
> activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a sense 
> "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to reality.

Like brain and universal machine. Yes, they dream a lot, but from their own 
perspective, they belong to infinities of computations, and that is what we 
observe below pur substitution level. 
There is always some context with the basic reality, as a computation is a very 
particular number relation. You need a reality to have computations, but the 
physical reality is not an ontological reality: it becomes a first person 
plural observable by infinities of numbers. That is testable, and indeed it 
predicted both the “MWI” of physics, and the quantum formalism, at least up to 
now.
The evidences accumulated that the physical observable are the canonical 
observable of neopythagoreanism. 
In fact, there are no evidence for a primary matter or for physicalism. The 
Renaissance has been only half-enlightenment: science will resume when we will 
also doubt in the fundamental (philosophy, religion) domain. 

You can compare with EPR. When I was young I was told that I would waste my 
time in studying such philosophical papers, but Bell contradicted this already 
and Shimony understood that what is thought as belonging to philosophy can 
become science later, as both theory and experimentation are improved. Same 
here: mechanism in theology is completely testable (that is: refutable), so we 
will see, soon or later, if Nature contradicts Mechanism. The truth itself can 
never be known as such (provably in the Mechanist theories).

Bruno



> 
> https://youtu.be/IjJmTeBSEzU   
> 
> LC
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
>> is not that valuable.
> 
> 
> At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that language 
> is based. A language per se is not enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect 
>> with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements.
> 
> I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person 
> indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on 
> all “creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological 
> border given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine.
> 
> With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or 
> better “theology” …).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, It 
>> is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
>> programmer's manual.
>> 
>> Wolfram Physics Project Functions
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page 
>> 
>> 
>> Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>> 
>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
>> be written as programs in this library/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-li...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
> 
>> To view this 

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 17:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
>> is not that valuable.
> 
> 
> At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that language 
> is based. A language per se is not enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect 
>> with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements.
> 
> I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person 
> indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on 
> all “creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological 
> border given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine.
> 
> With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or 
> better “theology” …).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> But that has nothing to do with physics..

How could a derivation of physics have nothing to do with physics? You are 
right, physics describes some reality through number relation (like F = ma,  F 
= GmM/r^2, …), but with Mechanism, those physical (ov-bservable, locally 
predictable) number relations must be explained in a sort of Darwinian way from 
the “number”s dream” (which we know to be all realised in arithmetic).




> Physics only describes (in a language).
> 
> Musing about its "meaning" is for philosophers to waste their time on.

With mechanism, physics becomes a branch of some philosophies or theologies, 
making them testable. 
Philosophy and theology are just nickname for fundamental science. People who 
do not muse on this usually accept the Aristotelian theologies, which 
unfortunately are logically incompatible with Darwin or any inferred physical 
laws until now, including the non computable part.



> 
> "Our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything [in 
> physics], use only finite computer resources by treating everything as 
> finite."
> -- Max Tegmark
> https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344


That is locally correct, and exploited through Mechanism (by Nature), but to 
get the qualia, there is not much choice to come back to Plato.

You can divide the theologies in three categories:

1) those with a Creator and a Creation,
2) those with only a Creation 
3) Those without a Creator and without a Creation

1) and 2) are what I called Aristotelian theologies. They “believed” in some 
“creation”, with or without a creator (personal or not).

3) is Plato (although Plato was just searching and looking at alternative, and 
we could add all the nuances between Platonism, Middle-Platonism 
(neopythagoreanism) and néoplatonisme.

Mechanism enforces the theologies of type three “3)", also called “neutral 
monism”. There is still a sort of God, but it makes not much sense to look at 
It like it could be a creator (the arithmetical reality, which supports all 
computations, from which the universal machine will infer an observable 
reality, a long time before realising it was also deducible.

Bruno






> 
> @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/7915f095-f2ae-43d2-8dd1-2ad6a8b7b4a8n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/11463EFC-4EC0-46B1-A2EC-732B6D7F2630%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
>  
> 
>  :
> 
> Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?
> A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they share a 
> common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since spacelike-locality is 
> not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it is possible for these 
> states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected in the multiway causal 
> graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is the essence of quantum 
> entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the context of Bell’s theorem.
> 
> 

If that graph structure is the correct explanation of the entanglement, that 
graphe structure must be justified bt the observable-mode of self-reference, to 
be able to distinguish what is quanta and what is qualia.

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
> is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is 
> this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N 
> entanglements.
> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, It 
> is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
> programmer's manual.
> 
> Wolfram Physics Project Functions
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page 
> 
> 
> Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>  
> 
> 
> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
> 
> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
> be written as programs in this library/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/ccac2e7d-7f04-4eec-81c7-e7b3c3f01b7cn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/2AB214C5-5EE2-4F25-B97E-0C49C7204C30%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

This is the view of the physicist as a kind of religious mystic, who 
contemplates a physics outside of language, and some "truth" out there they 
will never find.

But all there is to write/speak with is language, 

e.g.

R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G 
\over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

[ cf. https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php ]

 and how different vocabularies understood pragmatically might be 
translated into— or reduced to— one another

and playing the games of language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism#Wittgenstein_and_language_games

@philipthrift


On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects 
> and events. If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer 
> science that is fine, but it in of itself does not give physics. Feynman 
> made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
> interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
> activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a 
> sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to 
> reality.
>
> https://youtu.be/IjJmTeBSEzU  
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9dd12a9e-566f-4229-a952-1ac6edae29a0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects 
and events. If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer 
science that is fine, but it in of itself does not give physics. Feynman 
made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a 
sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to 
reality.

https://youtu.be/IjJmTeBSEzU  

LC

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
> anything is not that valuable. 
>
>
>
> At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that 
> language is based. A language per se is not enough.
>
>
>
>
>
> At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect 
> with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements.
>
>
> I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person 
> indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on 
> all “creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological 
> border given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine.
>
> With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or 
> better “theology” …).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, 
>> It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
>> programmer's manual.
>>
>> *Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page
>>
>> *Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
>>
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>
>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>>
>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is 
>> to be written as programs in this library/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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0c57930-3e00-4448-bdce-8ac6bf870b54n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/2a87d806-96c6-4aa7-b75e-b22534e95e1dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
>  :
>
> Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?
>
> A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they 
> share a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since 
> spacelike-locality is not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it 
> is possible for these states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected 
> in the multiway causal graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is 
> the essence of quantum entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the 
> context of Bell’s theorem.
>
> @philipthrift


I have not finished reading the main page yet. I got about half way through 
it. It seems two states are entangled in his system if they share a node. 
This is slightly different. The usual notation is that ** 
denotes two entangled states. Now, these are equivalent to a wormhole or 
can be transformed into that picture, where there is a center. That might 
serve as the node in Wolfram's picture. This might also connect with tensor 
network ideas and the Ryu-Takayangi theorem. The connection to locality and 
causality, which is tricky, is that in a pure entanglement there is no 
scale. It is nonlocal and everywhere. The spacetime dual of that would be 
conformal invariance or conformal blocks of states. 

LC
 

>
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
>> anything is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My 
>> point is this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from 
>> large N entanglements.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at 
>>> all, It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end 
>>> a programmer's manual.
>>>
>>> *Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page
>>>
>>> *Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>>
>>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>>>
>>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is 
>>> to be written as programs in this library/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/11a395ba-a2e0-40cb-bff8-4d728b56a0edn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
> anything is not that valuable. 
>
>
>
> At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that 
> language is based. A language per se is not enough.
>
>
>
>
>
> At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect 
> with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements.
>
>
> I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person 
> indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on 
> all “creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological 
> border given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine.
>
> With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or 
> better “theology” …).
>
> Bruno
>


But that has nothing to do with *physics*.. Physics only describes (in a 
language).

Musing about its "meaning" is for philosophers to waste their time on.

"Our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything [in 
physics], use only finite computer resources by treating everything as 
finite."
-- Max Tegmark
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344

@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/7915f095-f2ae-43d2-8dd1-2ad6a8b7b4a8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
> is not that valuable.


At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that language is 
based. A language per se is not enough.





> At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect 
> with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements.

I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person 
indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on all 
“creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological border 
given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine.

With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or 
better “theology” …).

Bruno




> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, It 
> is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
> programmer's manual.
> 
> Wolfram Physics Project Functions
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page 
> 
> 
> Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>  
> 
> 
> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
> 
> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
> be written as programs in this library/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/b0c57930-3e00-4448-bdce-8ac6bf870b54n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/7440288E-F227-4619-8780-96C3144CE06E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Aug 2020, at 14:06, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> What is really going on here is that a language of hypergraphs  (not well 
> specified) is what is assumed to be defined. All of fundamental physics is to 
> be rewritten in this language, replacing the others.
> 
> 
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/
> 
> By the way, when it comes to mathematics, even the setup that we have is 
> interesting. Calculus has been built to work in ordinary continuous spaces 
> (manifolds that locally approximate Euclidean space). But what we have here 
> is something different: in the limit of an infinitely large hypergraph, it’s 
> like a continuous space, but ordinary calculus doesn’t work on it (not least 
> because it isn’t necessarily integer-dimensional). So to really talk about it 
> well, we have to invent something that’s kind of a generalization of 
> calculus, that’s for example capable of dealing with curvature in 
> fractional-dimensional space. (Probably the closest current mathematics to 
> this is what’s been coming out of the very active field of geometric group 
> theory.)


If Mechanism is assumed, there is no choice: the laws of physics are given by 
the laws of self-reference, and they are invariant for the choice of the 
ontological theory, or first principles.

It is a way to explain the impact of incompleteness on physics: the laws of 
physics are “machine” or “theory” independent.

This does not mean that some choice cannot help in the derivation process, but 
that should be clearly made “temporarily”, and that choice must be either 
discarded or justifies, from the view of any universal system, run by any 
universal machinery. Indeed the physical reality emerges from the statistical 
interference based on *all* computations.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 6:54:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> In reading the first of these I run into the usual sense or difficulty with 
> Wolfram of understanding how to compute or calculate things.
> 
> This does get into HoTT (homotopy type theory) which I see as a sort of 
> quantum of homotopy or index that represents the obstruction to 
> diffeomorphisms on paths. A hole or "horn you can't pull the reins over" that 
> prevents any diffeomorphism that moves a curve past the hole or horn, defines 
> a first fundamental form π_1(M) = ℤ. The HoTT is a binary set of paths that 
> wrap around the obstruction and those which do not. In a quantum mechanical 
> form this can be a form of quantum bit. 
> 
> The role of topology with quantum mechanics is not fully understood. An 
> elementary particle is really a set of quantum states or numbers, and these 
> may have topological definition. The charge, spin, etc are topological 
> quantum numbers, and the Cheshire Cat experiments illustrate how these are in 
> a form of entanglement. Elementary particles are really not that different 
> from quasiparticles in condensed matter physics'
> 
> LC
> 
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
>  
> <https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/>
> Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model
> 
> 
> cf.
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
>  
> <https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/>
> @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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/475075a2-c912-4532-af6a-13843a37808an%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/475075a2-c912-4532-af6a-13843a37808an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/5CC16595-6DDC-4799-A627-10B918A77EFF%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
 :

Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?

A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they share 
a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since spacelike-locality 
is not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it is possible for 
these states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected in the multiway 
causal graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is the essence of 
quantum entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the context of Bell’s 
theorem.

@philipthrift

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
> anything is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My 
> point is this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from 
> large N entanglements.
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, 
>> It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
>> programmer's manual.
>>
>> *Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page
>>
>> *Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
>>
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>
>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>>
>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is 
>> to be written as programs in this library/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/ccac2e7d-7f04-4eec-81c7-e7b3c3f01b7cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is 
this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N 
entanglements.

LC

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, 
> It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
> programmer's manual.
>
> *Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page
>
> *Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>
> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>
> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is 
> to be written as programs in this library/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/b0c57930-3e00-4448-bdce-8ac6bf870b54n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, 
It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
programmer's manual.

*Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page

*Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb

(an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)

All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
be written as programs in this library/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/338e03ac-fa10-4132-8b7b-7f11b976a401n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

erent from quasiparticles in condensed matter physics'
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
>>> Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model
>>>
>>> cf.
>>>
>>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
>>>
>>> @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/df4b91d2-b5ac-483c-9692-3bd8d9af0d45n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

What is really going on here is that a* language of hypergraphs*  (not well 
specified) is what is assumed to be defined. All of fundamental physics is 
to be rewritten in this language, replacing the others.


https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/

By the way, when it comes to mathematics, even the setup that we have is 
interesting. Calculus has been built to work in ordinary continuous spaces 
(manifolds that locally approximate Euclidean space). But what we have here 
is something different: in the limit of an infinitely large hypergraph, 
it’s like a continuous space, but ordinary calculus doesn’t work on it (not 
least because it isn’t necessarily integer-dimensional). So to really talk 
about it well, we have to invent something that’s kind of a generalization 
of calculus, that’s for example capable of dealing with curvature in 
fractional-dimensional space. (Probably the closest current mathematics to 
this is what’s been coming out of the very active field of geometric group 
theory.)

@philipthrift

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 6:54:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> In reading the first of these I run into the usual sense or difficulty 
> with Wolfram of understanding how to compute or calculate things.
>
> This does get into HoTT (homotopy type theory) which I see as a sort of 
> quantum of homotopy or index that represents the obstruction to 
> diffeomorphisms on paths. A hole or "horn you can't pull the reins over" 
> that prevents any diffeomorphism that moves a curve past the hole or horn, 
> defines a first fundamental form π_1(M) = ℤ. The HoTT is a binary set of 
> paths that wrap around the obstruction and those which do not. In a quantum 
> mechanical form this can be a form of quantum bit. 
>
> The role of topology with quantum mechanics is not fully understood. An 
> elementary particle is really a set of quantum states or numbers, and these 
> may have topological definition. The charge, spin, etc are topological 
> quantum numbers, and the Cheshire Cat experiments illustrate how these are 
> in a form of entanglement. Elementary particles are really not that 
> different from quasiparticles in condensed matter physics'
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)
>>
>>
>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
>> Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model
>>
>> cf.
>>
>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
>>
>> @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/475075a2-c912-4532-af6a-13843a37808an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

In reading the first of these I run into the usual sense or difficulty with 
Wolfram of understanding how to compute or calculate things.

This does get into HoTT (homotopy type theory) which I see as a sort of 
quantum of homotopy or index that represents the obstruction to 
diffeomorphisms on paths. A hole or "horn you can't pull the reins over" 
that prevents any diffeomorphism that moves a curve past the hole or horn, 
defines a first fundamental form π_1(M) = ℤ. The HoTT is a binary set of 
paths that wrap around the obstruction and those which do not. In a quantum 
mechanical form this can be a form of quantum bit. 

The role of topology with quantum mechanics is not fully understood. An 
elementary particle is really a set of quantum states or numbers, and these 
may have topological definition. The charge, spin, etc are topological 
quantum numbers, and the Cheshire Cat experiments illustrate how these are 
in a form of entanglement. Elementary particles are really not that 
different from quasiparticles in condensed matter physics'

LC

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)
>
>
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
> Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model
>
> cf.
>
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
>
> @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/cc085a51-fe82-452f-a344-41404f060972n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Aug 2020, at 20:17, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)
> 
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
> Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model


That is no so bad.

To be sure, the idea that metamathematics is a sort of pre-mathematics is 
naïve, and does not make much sense. The whole point of Gödel and the logician 
was the discovery that a large part of metamathematics can be done in 
mathematics.

Incidentally, their use of the Curry-Howard isomorphism might be more 
interesting than many others, but it is incompatible with the type of logics 
imposed by Incompleteness, where the CH isomorphism works only for the first 
person modes (S4Grz1, cf []p & p).

They are still missing that physics needs the full machine theology to be, not 
just recovered, but explained.

Bruno



> 
> 
> 
> cf.
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
> 
> @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/1dff8b68-ed0f-49da-91d5-23f4e518e78bo%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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/19E244CF-86D6-49F9-8200-8B166AE7AB27%40ulb.ac.be.

Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

(HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)

https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model



cf.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/

@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/1dff8b68-ed0f-49da-91d5-23f4e518e78bo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I would agree with you that my Darwin's quote does not express all the 
Darwin theory. The point was rather that among what Darwin has wrote one 
can find such statements as well.


I should say that I took this quote from Lewontin's review on the book 
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini What Darwin Got Wrong


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/not-so-natural-selection/

In the book you will find more references on how biologists define 
natural selection. In Lewontin's review by the way you will find similar 
critique of adaptationism.


I personally like a document

Units and Levels of Selection
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/

where you will find a modern review of what biologists say. Let me quote 
from Section 2.4 The Manifestor of Adaptation Question about 
engineering adaptation.


Some, if not most, of this confusion is a result of a very important 
but neglected duality in the meaning of “adaptation” (in spite of useful 
discussions in Brandon 1978, Burian 1983, Krimbas 1984, Sober 1984). 
Sometimes “adaptation” is taken to signify any trait at all that is a 
direct result of a selection process at that level. In this view, any 
trait that arises directly from a selection process is claimed to be, by 
definition, an adaptation (e.g. Sober 1984; Brandon 1985, 1990; Arnold 
and Fristrup 1982). Sometimes, on the other hand, the term “adaptation” 
is reserved for traits that are “good for” their owners, that is, those 
that provide a “better fit” with the environment, and that intuitively 
satisfy some notion of “good engineering.”[7] These two meanings of 
adaptation, the selection-product and engineering definitions 
respectively, are distinct, and in some cases, incompatible.


Note that engineering adaptation is exactly selection for. Hence 
Fodor has not made it up. This is what you find reading at least some 
famous biologists.


In general, the starting point for Fodor were explanations as follows

‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the 
imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a 
hunter-gatherer to have.’


It is a typical explanation based on natural selection that you meet 
quite often nowadays. It is also similar to what was written in the 
paper on mathematics and physics. Yet, to prove it one must assume that 
natural selection can select for. Otherwise it will not work. The 
reason is related to coextensive traits. Provided one would like to 
prove the statement above by natural selection, one must explain 
selection of a particular coextensive trait. Yet, natural selection 
cannot differentiate coextensive traits, as they occur in nature 
simultaneously.


Evgenii


Am 25.08.2015 um 20:29 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/25/2015 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is
false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not
that impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but
if you what to prove it, you must invest more time.

This is for example how Fodor describes natural selection:

One is its familiar historical account of our phylogeny; the other
is the theory of natural selection, which purports to characterise
the mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all
evolutionary changes in the innate properties of organisms.
According to selection theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the
inventory of its heritable traits, including, notably, its
heritable mental traits – is an adaptation to the demands of its
ecological situation.


But that not what evolution says. If it did it would have implied
that Darwin's finches would be a single species, since they were all
in the same environment.  Let's see Fodor cite some reputable
evolutionary biologist who says this.


Adaptation is a name for the process by which environmental
variables select among the creatures in a population the ones whose
heritable properties are most fit for survival and reproduction. So
 environmental selection for fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a
bit) the process par excellence that prunes the evolutionary
tree.

There is more to this end in his paper. Finally, this is what
Darwin writes about natural selection in On the Origin of Species:

[natural selection] is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout
the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good….

This is exactly what Fodor rejects.


Darwin is the first word on evolution, not the last, and you're
cherry picking from him. He also recognized sexual selection and
neutral, random variation.

Fodor writes, Hence natural selection should not only select a
trait, rather it must select for it.  Which is just his fantasy
interpretation of evolution.

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

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false 
because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that 
impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but if you 
what to prove it, you must invest more time.


This is for example how Fodor describes natural selection:

One is its familiar historical account of our phylogeny; the other is 
the theory of natural selection, which purports to characterise the 
mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all evolutionary 
changes in the innate properties of organisms. According to selection 
theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the inventory of its heritable 
traits, including, notably, its heritable mental traits – is an 
adaptation to the demands of its ecological situation. Adaptation is a 
name for the process by which environmental variables select among the 
creatures in a population the ones whose heritable properties are most 
fit for survival and reproduction. So environmental selection for 
fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a bit) the process par excellence that 
prunes the evolutionary tree.


There is more to this end in his paper. Finally, this is what Darwin 
writes about natural selection in On the Origin of Species:


[natural selection] is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the 
world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, 
preserving and adding up all that is good….


This is exactly what Fodor rejects.

Evgenii

Am 24.08.2015 um 20:10 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you
can read his answer to comments.


I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's
explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because
the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail
Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific
explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they
explain.



To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his
argument. Shortly:

1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just
happens but it does not has a goal.

2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule.
 Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it
must select for.


But that's Fodor's made up, imaginary version of natural selection.
Natural selection isn't required to select for some trait.  It only
means that given a situation some traits lead to more successful
reproduction than others.  Fodor is taking a metaphorical phrase,
reinterpreting it anthropomorphically, and then saying, See that
phrase doesn't apply.

Brent




3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence
according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for.

Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it
means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it.

Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as
it happens that different people understand what natural selection
is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper.

Evgenii





--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[meekerdb]

On 8/25/2015 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must 
be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe 
that Fodor is wrong but if you what to prove it, you must invest more time.


This is for example how Fodor describes natural selection:

One is its familiar historical account of our phylogeny; the other is the theory of 
natural selection, which purports to characterise the mechanism not just of the 
formation of species, but of all evolutionary changes in the innate properties of 
organisms. According to selection theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the inventory of 
its heritable traits, including, notably, its heritable mental traits – is an adaptation 
to the demands of its ecological situation. 


But that not what evolution says. If it did it would have implied that Darwin's finches 
would be a single species, since they were all in the same environment.  Let's see Fodor 
cite some reputable evolutionary biologist who says this.


Adaptation is a name for the process by which environmental variables select among the 
creatures in a population the ones whose heritable properties are most fit for survival 
and reproduction. So environmental selection for fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a 
bit) the process par excellence that prunes the evolutionary tree.


There is more to this end in his paper. Finally, this is what Darwin writes about 
natural selection in On the Origin of Species:


[natural selection] is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every 
variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all 
that is good….


This is exactly what Fodor rejects.


Darwin is the first word on evolution, not the last, and you're cherry picking from him.  
He also recognized sexual selection and neutral, random variation.


Fodor writes, Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it
must select for it.  Which is just his fantasy interpretation of evolution.

Brent



Evgenii

Am 24.08.2015 um 20:10 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you
can read his answer to comments.


I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's
explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because
the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail
Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific
explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they
explain.



To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his
argument. Shortly:

1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just
happens but it does not has a goal.

2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule.
 Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it
must select for.


But that's Fodor's made up, imaginary version of natural selection.
Natural selection isn't required to select for some trait.  It only
means that given a situation some traits lead to more successful
reproduction than others.  Fodor is taking a metaphorical phrase,
reinterpreting it anthropomorphically, and then saying, See that
phrase doesn't apply.

Brent




3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence
according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for.

Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it
means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it.

Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as
it happens that different people understand what natural selection
is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper.

Evgenii







--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can
read his answer to comments.


I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation
of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural
selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation.
But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed
by the experimental evidence they explain.



To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. 
Shortly:


1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but 
it does not has a goal.


2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. 
Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must 
select for.


3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to 
the point 1, natural selection cannot select for.


Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to 
select it for. Natural selection cannot do it.


Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it 
happens that different people understand what natural selection is 
differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper.


Evgenii

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[meekerdb]

On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can
read his answer to comments.


I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation
of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural
selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation.
But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed
by the experimental evidence they explain.



To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. 
Shortly:

1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but it does not has 
a goal.


2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. Hence natural 
selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for.


But that's Fodor's made up, imaginary version of natural selection. Natural selection 
isn't required to select for some trait.  It only means that given a situation some traits 
lead to more successful reproduction than others.  Fodor is taking a metaphorical phrase, 
reinterpreting it anthropomorphically, and then saying, See that phrase doesn't apply.


Brent




3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to the point 1, 
natural selection cannot select for.


Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to select it for. 
Natural selection cannot do it.


Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it happens that 
different people understand what natural selection is differently. Fodor's definition to 
this end is in the paper.


Evgenii



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Aug 2015, at 09:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See

Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings


I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I
suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble.


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can  
read his answer to comments.



I will read this when I have more time. I think I agree partially with  
Fodor. The subject might be related to the old ASSA versus RSSA  
(absolute versus relative self-sampling assumption). I think selection  
is based on a version of the ASSA, and can be used to explain a  
posteriori geographical factors, but it becomes close to God-of-the- 
gap argument when used to explain the origin of the physical laws (but  
I need to read Fodor more attentively to be sure, and for the next  
days I will be to much busy to do that at ease).


Bruno




Evgenii

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 07:27:46PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb:
 On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 
 ...
 
 The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can
 read his answer to comments.
 
 I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation
 of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural
 selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation.
 But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed
 by the experimental evidence they explain.
 
 
 To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his
 argument. Shortly:
 
 1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens
 but it does not has a goal.
 
 2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule.
 Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it
 must select for.
 
 3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according
 to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for.
 
 Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it
 means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it.
 
 Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it
 happens that different people understand what natural selection is
 differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper.
 

Sounds like pure and utter sophistry to me.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[meekerdb]

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See

Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings


I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I
suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble.


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to 
comments.


I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are 
white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail 
Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed 
by the experimental evidence they explain.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb:

On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See

Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings


I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I
suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble.


The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read 
his answer to comments.


Evgenii

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[meekerdb]

On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See

Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings


I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the 
comments first and save yourself the trouble.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See

Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings

Evgenii

Am Mittwoch, 19. August 2015 02:18:00 UTC+2 schrieb Brent:

 I like Wenmackers essay too. 

 http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf 

 Brent 

 On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
  
  
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770 
  
  
  (reverse of Tegmark) 
  
  cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/ 
  
  - 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

I forgot to mention Carlo Rovelli here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.1v1.pdf

Messaggio originale
Da: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Data: 19/08/2015 8.40
A: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ogg: R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

See also Arnold here

http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

See also Arnold here

http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html


Messaggio originale
Da: meeke...@verizon.net
Data: 19/08/2015 2.17
A: undisclosed-recipients:;
Ogg: Re: Mathematics is Physics

I like Wenmackers essay too.

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf

Brent

On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770


 (reverse of Tegmark)

 cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/

 - 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics is Physics

[meekerdb]

I like Wenmackers essay too.

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf

Brent

On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



   http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770


(reverse of Tegmark)

cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/

- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.