Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:39:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 Jun 2020, at 13:25, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 5:25:23 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> As for Hossenfelder's fav quantum mechanics semantics, she has stated >> many times on her bl

Re: The size of the universe

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:33 PM smitra wrote: > On 08-06-2020 13:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:09 PM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 07-06-2020 01:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> > >>> Applying the idea of quantum fluctuations to the inflaton field is > >> a mistake, since inflat

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On 6/8/2020 2:24 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG htt

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

On 6/8/2020 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 7 Jun 2020, at 12:39, Philip Thrift > wrote: On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 5:16:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: But collapsing or not remains relevant, to make sense of the behaviour of single particle, or

A tour of "machine" mathematics

The slides pdf: http://www.cs.ru.nl/~herman/revolution.pdf is a nice historical tour of "proof-assistant"-programming with some nice photos, and this historical tidbit: *AUTOMATH* N.G. de Bruijn (1967) a language to encode mathematics fully formally https://www.win.tue.nl/automath/ @philipt

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG >> > > > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predic

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

On 6/8/2020 4:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 7 Jun 2020, at 23:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 6/7/2020 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. All proofs are relative to their premises. You just assume arithmetic is re

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html : Predictions are overrated

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 10:24:18 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: >> >> *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use >>> idealized cases to reach imp

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> It predicts every

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson > > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG >> > > It's not unlike the monkey typing at r

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: > > *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use >> idealized cases to reach important insights.* > > > Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to conv

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:40:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: >> >> *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use >>> idealized cases to reach impo

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: > > *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use >> idealized cases to reach important insights.* > > > Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to conv

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

Apology if I have already sent this post, but my computer swears that I did not! On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:13:32 PM UTC+2, Lawrence Crowell wrote: It took a while for me to get to this. The formula f_k(k) = f(k)+1 and g such that you get 0 = 1 appears to be the contradiction one gets with t

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

> On 7 Jun 2020, at 13:55, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 6:25 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of > quantum foundations. > > Yes, and Superdeterminism is swiftly discarded for a ver

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

> On 7 Jun 2020, at 13:25, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 5:25:23 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > As for Hossenfelder's fav quantum mechanics semantics, she has stated many > times on her blog, it's superdeterminism. > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

> On 7 Jun 2020, at 12:39, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 5:16:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But collapsing or not remains relevant, to make sense of the behaviour of > single particle, or more generally to get some meaning of the relative > probabilities, e

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use > idealized cases to reach important insights.* Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to convince Bruno that mathematical approximations help us understand physical phenom

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 4:27:10 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: > > >> > *John Clark **refuses to admit that MATHEMATICS is often applied to >> the POSTULATES of physics, * >> > > Postulates yields results that are exact and that's why physics

Re: The size of the universe

On 08-06-2020 13:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:09 PM smitra wrote: On 07-06-2020 01:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: Applying the idea of quantum fluctuations to the inflaton field is a mistake, since inflation is based on a classical field. And you do not quantize a classica

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

> On 8 Jun 2020, at 08:21, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG > > > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html >

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

> On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG > > It's not unlike the monkey typing at random and coming up with Shakespeare's > plays, or the Bible. AG Using this

Re: My view of Bruno's theory

> On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:00, Alan Grayson wrote: > > It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG It refutes Newton’s physics, and it makes me discover QM, including the “many-histories”, which was enough to be mocked, by people, who have eventually admitted that they were wrong (the wis

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

> On 7 Jun 2020, at 23:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2020 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. > > All proofs are relative to their premises. You just assume arithmetic is > real.

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

> On 8 Jun 2020, at 12:10, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:43:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 6 Jun 2020, at 12:44, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 4:57:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 5 Jun 2020, at 00:39, Lawrenc

Re: The size of the universe

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:09 PM smitra wrote: > On 07-06-2020 01:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > Applying the idea of quantum fluctuations to the inflaton field is a > > mistake, since inflation is based on a classical field. And you do not > > quantize a classical field by adding "quantum fluctuat

Re: Maxwell's Equations and Black Body radiation

Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: > > *John Clark **refuses to admit that MATHEMATICS is often applied to the > POSTULATES of physics, * > Postulates yields results that are exact and that's why physics doesn't have any, only mathematics does. > *to give important new insights.*

Re: Gödel's Miracle and Why Conventionalism makes no sense in Computer Science

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:43:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Jun 2020, at 12:44, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 4:57:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 5 Jun 2020, at 00:39, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >> On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:07:45

Re: The size of the universe

On 07-06-2020 01:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:54 PM smitra wrote: On 06-06-2020 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:11 AM smitra wrote: These fluctuations at zero temperature are what we call "quantum fluctuations" in physics. I think you are confu