Le 30-nov.-07, à 20:21, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> Why can't our universe be modelled by a cellular automata?
By UDA, this is just a priori impossible.
What *is* still possible, is that you can "modelize" the emergence of
the appearance of a universe by modelling, with a cellular automata,
Le 30-nov.-07, à 20:00, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> Here I am an ultrafinitist. I believe that the universe is strictly
> finite. The space and time are discrete. And the space today have a
> limit. But the time might be without limit, that I don't know.
Then you are physicalist before be
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 19:28:05 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> > Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> >> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> >>> What is the production rules of the "no"set R ?
> >>
> >> How do you define "the set R"?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
> On Nov 28, 9:56 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
>> rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
>> according to the rules. And after that event will fol
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
>
> Le 29-nov.-07, à 17:22, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
> There is a difference between "unlimited" and "infinite". "Unlimited"
> just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite. If
> you
> add something to a finite set, then the new set will a
Le 29-nov.-07, à 17:22, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
>>> rules for that model, then one event will fol
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:00:17 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi
>
>
> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date:
Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> As soon as you say "the set of ALL numbers", then you are forced to
>> define the word ALL here. And for every definition, you are forced to
>> introduce a "limit". It is not possible
Marc, please, allow me to write in plain language - not using those
fancy words of these threads.
Some time ago when the discussion was in commonsensically more
understandable vocabulary, I questioned something similar
to Günther, as pertaining to "numbers" - the alleged generators of
'everything'
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi
>
>
> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>>
>>
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTE
Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> As soon as you talk about "the set N", then you are making a "closure"
>> and making that set finite.
>>
>
>
> Why is that? How do you define the word "set"?
>
>
> The only possible way to talk about
>
>> something wit
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>>
>>
>>> What is the production rules of the "no"set R ?
>>>
>> How do you define "the set R"?
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_real
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:25:54 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> > Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> >> As soon as you talk about "the set N", then you are making a "closure"
> >> and making that set finite.
> >
> > Ok the
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>>
>> As soon as you talk about "the set N", then you are making a "closure"
>> and making that set finite.
>>
>
> Ok then the set R is also finite ?
>
Yes.
>
>> The only possible
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> > Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> >> There is a difference between "unlimited" and "infinite". "Unlimited"
> >> just says that it has no limit, but everyt
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>>
>> There is a difference between "unlimited" and "infinite". "Unlimited"
>> just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite. If you
>> add something to a finite set, then the
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> >> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
> >> rules for that model, then one e
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>>
>> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
>> rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
>> according to the rules. And after t
On Nov 28, 9:56 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
> rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
> according to the rules. And after that event will follow another more
> event, and so
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
>
> Le 28-nov.-07, à 09:56, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model
> and rules for that model, then one event will follow after another
> event, according to the rules. And after that event will follow
>
Le 28-nov.-07, à 09:56, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>>> When I talk about "pure mathematics" I mean that kind of mathematics
>>> you have in GameOfLife. There you have "gliders" that move in the
>>> GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders interact with eachother when
>
Le 28-nov.-07, à 05:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Nov 28, 3:16 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Le 27-nov.-07, à 05:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>>
>>> Geometric properties cannot be derived from
>>> informational properties.
>>
>> I don't see why. Above all, this
Hi,
Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
> >> When I talk about "pure mathematics" I mean that kind of mathematics you
> >> have in GameOfLife. There you have "gliders" that move in the
> >> GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
>> When I talk about "pure mathematics" I mean that kind of mathematics you
>> have in GameOfLife. There you have "gliders" that move in the
>> GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders interact with eachother when they
>> meet. These gliders you can see as physical
On Nov 28, 3:16 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 27-nov.-07, à 05:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> > Geometric properties cannot be derived from
> > informational properties.
>
> I don't see why. Above all, this would make the computationalist wrong,
> or at least some step i
On Nov 28, 1:18 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dear Marc,
>
> > Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields.
> > Mathematics deals with data types, relations and sets/categories.
>
> I'm no physicist, so please correct me but IMHO:
>
> Symmetries = relations
> Forces - cou
Le 27-nov.-07, à 05:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Geometric properties cannot be derived from
> informational properties.
I don't see why. Above all, this would make the computationalist wrong,
or at least some step in the UDA wrong (but then which one?).
I recall that there is an argume
Dear Marc,
> Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields.
> Mathematics deals with data types, relations and sets/categories.
I'm no physicist, so please correct me but IMHO:
Symmetries = relations
Forces - could they not be seen as certain invariances, thus also
relating to symmetries?
On Nov 27, 3:54 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Besides which, mathematics and physics are dealing with quite
> > different distinctions. It is a 'type error' it try to reduce or
> > identity one with the other.
>
> I don't see why.
Physics deals with symmetries, forces and
>When I talk about "pure mathematics" I mean that kind of mathematics you have
>in GameOfLife. There you have "gliders" that move in the GameOfLife-universe,
>and these gliders interact with eachother when they meet. These gliders you
>can see as physical objects. These physical objects are
Could we have a stop to HTML-only postings please! These are hard to read.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:51:36AM +0100, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathem
Listers, (Bruno, Torgny, et al.):
some (lay) remarks from another mindset (maybe I completely miss your
points - perhaps even my own ones).
I go with Bruno in a lack of clear understanding what "physical world"
may be. It can be extended into entirely mathematical ideas beside the
likable assumpt
Le 26-nov.-07, à 04:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that everything is reducible to physical substances and
properties. And I think that all of physics is reducible to pure
mathematics...
You can't have it both ways. If ph
rafael jimenez buendia skrev:
Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding
altogether fermions and bosons is plain wrong. Best
What is wrong with adding fermions and bosons together? Xiao-Gang Wen
is working with a condensed string-net where the waves behave just like
bosons
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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
> >
Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding altogether fermions
and bosons is plain wrong. Best
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:30:03 -0800> Subject: Re: Theory of Everything
> based on E8 by Garrett Lisi> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[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
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
