If space itself is some sort of dark stuff (or is filled with stuff), and
that stuff is not "uniformly distributed" and it interacts with all the
"observable" stuff, then this could make sense.
And few think that most of fundamental physics is the right set of
"equations" anyway.
@philipthri
Over the past few decades there is an explosion of people who think the
"mathiest" math will help in advancing physics.
This is a typical example:
*Modern Physics formalized in Modal Homotopy Type Theory*
https://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Modern+Physics+formalized+in+Modal+Homotopy+Type+Theor
The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new
foundation" of physics has a name:
*The Wolfram Model.*
*Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
*Model*
Jonathan Gorard
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechani
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, having read the article this is a result I hope disappears in the
> light of further work. This would almost mean the universe has no rhyme or
> reason at all.
>
Before 1900 the shape of the blackb
Most physicists are not working at the most fundamental level of reality,
they're a solid state physicist or a thermodynamicist or an astrophysicist,
but if you are working at that level then you have no choice but to go
deeper and deeper into very abstract mathematics. Everybody would prefer it
if
No, “the homogeneity of the CMB” tells NOTHING about causality, origin,
meaning, morals, eschaton or infinite regress. It simply believes that CNB is
homogeneous, that is all. What is MORE rational? Life-less CMB is aseitous and
produce life? Or, INTELLIGENT LIFE is aseitous and create both dead
People have made glowing plants before but they only glowed dimly and for a
short amount of time, but for the first time scientists have used genetic
engineering to make a plant that glowed permanently, from the day it
sprouted from a seed to the day it died, and it's 10 times brighter than
any pre
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:12:52 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
>
> No, “the homogeneity of the CMB” tells NOTHING about causality, origin,
> meaning, morals, eschaton or infinite regress. It simply believes that
> CNB is homogeneous, that is all. What is *MORE* rational? Life-less CMB
> is
It's a symptom of success. Physics has done a good job of modeling
everything within the scope of experiment and observation. So now
extending theories means going beyond what's testable; i.e. speculation.
Brent
On 4/29/2020 1:10 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Over the past few decades there is
How about p-adic K-theory and topology?
This has some possible connection to physics, but physics most likely does
not need all the mathematical theorem-proof aspects of this. We physicists
after all tend to have a bit of a Babylonian maths perspective, as Feynman
put it.
LC
On Wednesday, Apr
What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
Ronald
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new
> foundation" of physics has a name:
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativ
You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of
physics - which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding
morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed
with as a student.
What else?
@philipthrift
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 a
Shouldn't that come out of the Wolfram Model?
Probably could.
@philipthrift
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> How about p-adic K-theory and topology?
>
> This has some possible connection to physics, but physics most likely does
> not need all the
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Shouldn't that come out of the Wolfram Model?
>
> Probably could.
>
> @philipthrift
>
My look at this is it appears to be combinatorics or graph theory, Also it
has features similar to the AI graphs of Nerode and oth
You are right and it is very surprising to me that some people praise Catholic
Church for superior progress of Latin Civilization compared to others.
And it is very interesting what you wrote about Tao. I just started reading a
book:
https://www.amazon.com/Pilgrimages-Emptiness-Rethinking-Real
On 4/29/2020 4:36 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
Shouldn't that come out of the Wolfram Model?
Probably could.
@philipthrift
My look at this is it appears to be combinatorics or graph theory,
Also it has fe
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:12:21 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark
I can see the platonism of things or imagine that I can.I am profoundly
convinced also (another topic) that math is truly a gift, due to the wiring of
neurons. To your point my idea of Ludwig Boltzmann's simply seems logical, or
the simplest explanation for things as they appear to us now. I am
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:00:00 PM UTC-5, Eva wrote:
>
> You are right and it is very surprising to me that some people praise
> Catholic Church for superior progress of Latin Civilization compared to
> others.
>
>
> And it is very interesting what you wrote about Tao. I just started
> r
On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27 Apr 2020, at 14:36, Lawrence Crowell
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
21 matches
Mail list logo
