Re: (OT) Re: Object identity

On 29 Jun 2006 18:28:08 -0700, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 06:05:52 -0700, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:

I'm quite interested in the idea that Quantum Mechanics (with all its
weirdness) can come out of number theory. If physicists develop a self
consistent, computable TOE that passes experimental testing then a
mathematician will say : There exists turing machine T st T is
isomorphic to our universe.

Hmm, why are you so sure that it would be computable?

I'm not sure of that at all. No one knows.

Then you don't know if it can be isomorphic.

For what we know now,
it is quite probable that it could stay incomputable. So far, TOE includes
randomness, which is incomputable, and has an uncountable number of states
[as long as no observer forces it to a definite state.]

The randomness is not at odds with computability. According to the
Many Worlds Interpretation of QM the universe continually splits into
slightly different versions of itself. This has led to the term
multiverse instead of a universe. From a third person perspective it
is quite deterministic because all possible paths are taken. However
from a first person perspective we are tricked into thinking that the
universe is random.

That's the old [wrong] theory of hidden parameter. This changes nothing for
the first person. You can equivalently say that the number of states of the
random process is uncountable.

(It is again a local problem of platonic mindset, which cannot accept
things as they are. Namely that they are NOT! (:-))

I find it interesting that pure mathematics may predict that QM
uncertainty is inevitable.

Huh, Church did it long before, by proclaiming free will! (:-))

By Occam's razor the need to postulate physical reality should be
dropped. Rather than argue over whether mathematical entities exist,
the argument is now over whether there is anything but mathematical
entities.

The next step of this dialectical process [of bad recursion] is to say the
physical [now mathematical] reality is constituted by everything that
exists, and then to reject it once again...

BTW the 'everything' group discusses this sort of stuff, if you are
interested. I once subscribed to this group for a short while, but
didn't find it particularly productive.

It can't be productive, it's a philosophy! (:-))

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
    ... If physicists develop a self ... mathematician will say: There exists turing machine T st T is ... The randomness is not at odds with computability. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
    ... If physicists develop a self ... mathematician will say: There exists turing machine T st T is ... The randomness is not at odds with computability. ... Many Worlds Interpretation of QM the universe continually splits into ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Upstairs--Third Person narration
    ... Yes - parts of the universe observe other parts, ... description which would itself be consistent. ... Imagine a scientific geometer-ant mathematician, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... >> The First postulate says that light must take the shortest time path ... > the universe is full of some substance 'the aether' and in the second ... > However, that said, I think a gifted mathematician could tack bits on ... > to Newtonian physics to account for all the disoveries of the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... >> The First postulate says that light must take the shortest time path ... > the universe is full of some substance 'the aether' and in the second ... > However, that said, I think a gifted mathematician could tack bits on ... > to Newtonian physics to account for all the disoveries of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)