> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion years of dust,
On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerousTheoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c03feca-3d8f-4a20-bc53-de9697dd85a8%40googlegroups.com.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion years of dust,
On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerousTheoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous precedent: science based on zero empirical evidenceAny one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the question in metaphysics.Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the correct attitude if one believe in such a thing.Bruno
On 8 Oct 2019, at 19:17, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerousTheoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous precedent: science based on zero empirical evidenceAny one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the question in metaphysics.Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the correct attitude if one believe in such a thing.Brunox emerges from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics ("nonstandard models”).
There are other arithmetics for hyperarithmetical theory.
Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251723db-29a3-49ab-9d1b-92f8c234378e%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d2c5082-2896-4b97-82c1-89a6bdf03d1f%40googlegroups.com.
> the so-called Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are universes containing our parallel selves, identical to us but for their different experiences of quantum physics. These theories are attractive to some few theoretical physicists and philosophers, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence for them.
We recall that in order to obtain the classical limit of quantum mechanics one needs to take the ℏ→0 limit. In addition, one also needs an explanation for the absence of macroscopic quantum superposition of position states. One possible explanation for the latter is the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) model of spontaneous localisation. Here we describe how spontaneous localisation modifies the path integral formulation of density matrix evolution in quantum mechanics. (Such a formulation has been derived earlier by Pearle and Soucek; we provide two new derivations of their result). We then show how the von Neumann equation and the Liouville equation for the density matrix arise in the quantum and classical limit, respectively, from the GRW path integral. Thus we provide a rigorous demonstration of the quantum to classical transition.
> I did a search of his book [ https://books.google.com/books?id=f16IDwAAQBAJ ] and though he does write about Feynman diagrams I don't see anything about path integrals.That would be a curious omission.
Path integrals are a method of calculation not a quantum interpretation ...
And do you think GRW theory is also a danger to science just as Many Worlds is? Should everybody just stick with Shut Up And Calculate and stop asking difficult questions?John K Clark
> Path Integrals and RealityAdrian Kent> We define the idea of real path quantum theory, a realist generalization of quantum theory in which it is postulated that the configuration space path actually followed by a closed quantum system is probabilistically chosen. ... The ultimate vision of those who take path integral quantum theory as fundamental to all of physics is a path integral formulation of quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.
>> do you think GRW theory is also a danger to science just as Many Worlds is? Should everybody just stick with Shut Up And Calculate and stop asking difficult questions?
> Beats me.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:> Path Integrals and RealityAdrian Kent> We define the idea of real path quantum theory, a realist generalization of quantum theory in which it is postulated that the configuration space path actually followed by a closed quantum system is probabilistically chosen. ... The ultimate vision of those who take path integral quantum theory as fundamental to all of physics is a path integral formulation of quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.And how does that differ from the Shut Up And Calculate quantum interpretation?
> I'll bet you Adrian Kent's paper* (did you read it?) is netter than Shut Up And Read Sean Carroll's Book On Many Worlds.