Digital Philosophy
karl robold
substrate for quantum mechanics ?
is Hilbert, are observable-algebras obsolete ?
why is it called Philosophy and not Theory ?
Eray Ozkural exa
"karl robold" <k.ro...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<c32rlv$22lg45$1...@ID-225840.news.uni-berlin.de>...
There is "digital physics" pursued by Ed Frenkin et al. and it is a
theory of physics.
However, there is also a digital philosophy tradition which has
descended from the work of Leibniz and ancient determinists! That
philosophy is concerned with metaphysical questions... For an example
of a philosophical theory by a proponent of the "digital", search for
Multism and mind.
Regards,
--
Eray Ozkural
Tim Tyler
> why is it called Philosophy and not Theory ?
I don't think anyone has a digital theory yet - at least not a
very useful one.
Indeed there aren't even any observations that can be used to
favour discrete models over continuous ones.
Discrete models have their attractions - but currently they are
primarily essentially aesthetic and philosophical in nature - rather
than being due to them making better predictions than competing models.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Ross Rhodes
Digital Philosophy nicely connotes the logic, best expressed by Fredkin,
that begins with the assumption that all things -- and we mean all things --
are discrete. See Ed's "Finite Nature," posted at the digitalphilosophy.org
site. If the assumption is true, then there are implications for the
physical world. These implications in turn imply a straightforward program
of investigation that is termed by Wolfram as a new kind of science (c) (tm)
(r).
A program of physical investigation based on an as-yet-unproved assumption
(and without any consensus theory) seems to overlap several categories, but
philosophy is certainly one of them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
His
RhodesR<at>BottomLayer.com
Mark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ross Rhodes <www.bottomlayer.com>
karl robold
the aisthetic dimensionality of discrete models ?
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1lock.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:HuqJ9...@bath.ac.uk...
Ed Fredkin
> substrate for quantum mechanics ?
My take on this question is as follows:
Digital Mechanics is a model of the physical world that assumes
"Finite Nature." The idea is that space, time and state are all
discrete. Further, Finite Nature assumes that there are no locally
generated random quantities.
If experiments were to show that the Finite Nature assumption is true,
then we would call the kind of discrete process that produces physics
"Digital Mechanics"
> is Hilbert, are observable-algebras obsolete ?
>
> why is it called Philosophy and not Theory ?
"Digital Philosophy" is a philosphy that assumes that the fundamental
processes in various areas of science and philosophy, are discrete
processes. For example, we know that the genetic code, as expressed
in DNA, is a digital code. Digital philosophy suggests that processes
of life (such as the way that ontology recapitulates phylogony, may
reflect some kind of underlying largely digital processes involving
discrete quantities.
Also, a believer in Digital Philosophy might think that there are
already many clues that suggest Finite Nature. The fact that there
are atoms, quanta of light and charge, quantized angular momentum.
The fact that particles are either bosons or fermions and that all
particles have an integer quantity of spin are again suggestive of an
underlying process like digital mechanics.
Everytime we encounter a small integer in physics, it is evidence (to
a believer in Digital Philosophy) that Finite Nature may be true. For
example, there are 3 spatial dimensions, 3 families of leptons and3
families of quarks, 3 color charges etc. There are 2 electric
charges, discrete energy levels etc.
Finally, and in a way most interesting, is that there are many
mysteries in physics that physicists have gotten used to and which
they manage to ignore. These are usually situations where we have
mathematical models that give the right answers, but where we cannot
figure out any kind of plausible models as to what might be going on
(down at the bottom) that gives rise to the mathematics. What we can
say is that if and when we ever have a digital mechanics model of
physics that also gives us the right answers, we will also
have a simple and easy to understand model of exactly what it is that
gives rise to the laws of physics that we observe.