[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
> As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
> geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
> of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the
> (probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to physical
> substan
On Nov 23, 1:10 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now such work raises the remark, which I don't really want to develop
> now, which is that qualifiying "TOE" a theory explaining "only" forces
> and particles or field, is implicit physicalism, and we know (by UDA)
> that this is
One more question: can or should p be the observer?
George
George Levy wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found
> very intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
>
> Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:I t
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found very
intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me
Le 21-nov.-07, à 17:33, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> What do you think of this "proof"?:
>
> Let us have the bijection:
>
> 0 {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,...}
> 1 {1,0,0,0,0,0,0,...}
> 2 {0,1,0,0,0,0,0,...}
> 3 {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,...}
> 4 {0,0,1,0,0,0,0,...}
> 5
Le 22-nov.-07, à 07:19, Barry Brent a écrit :
>
> The reason it isn't a bijection (of a denumerable set with the set of
> binary sequences): the pre-image (the left side of your map) isn't
> a set--you've imposed an ordering. Sets, qua sets, don't have
> orderings. Orderings are extra. (I'm
Le 21-nov.-07, à 19:54, George Levy a écrit :
> A theory of everyting is sweeping the Physics community.
>
>
> The theory by Garrett Lisi is explained in this Wiki entry.
>
>
> A simulation of E8 can be found a the New Scientist.
>
>
> The Wiki entry on E8 is also interesting.
Thanks, very
7 matches
Mail list logo
