> On 14 Jun 2019, at 11:31, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:01:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Jun 2019, at 19:54, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> "Most theories in science are implicitly second order theory, which, unless >> restricted in some way, are usually not “Turing decidable” or “Turing >> emulable". >> >> >> >> What current scientific theory is not Turing-emulable? > > Arithmetic (the set of true sentences), or just second order arithmetic. > Machine can do that, but not in an algorithmic way, like us. > > > >> Everything I know of what computational physicists, chemists, biologists do >> they do with standard programming (FORTRAN, C, Python, ...) on conventional >> computers. They simulate the dozens of different black hole theories on >> supercomputers. They make simulations of critters (OpenWorm). > > Simulation is not emulation. You cannot simulate the observation of the spin > of an electron, due to the “exact randomness” of QM, but of course, you can > approximate it with some pseudo-random algorithm, or recover the experience > of indeterminacy by emulating yourself in some self-duplication. No, if the > recovering is on all computations, that becomes impossible to do. > > > >> >> Current theories of science (actually written down in articles in TeX:Math) >> are all Turing-emulable, as far as I know. They are all "replicated" in >> programs on conventional computers. > > You cannot simulate the arithmetical reality. We can simulate the quantum > computation with a Turing machine, but we cannot emulate any physical > process, baceuse with mechanism, that would require being able to emulate the > entire universal dovetailing at each step of the execution. This comes from > the first person indeterminacy on all computations. > > Bruno > > > > Don't think arithmetic is a scientific theory. I just mean theories written > in science articles like GR, QM, black hole, chemical molecular, cellular > biological, that sort of stuff.
That is the Aristotelian prejudice. In metaphysics, the physical universe is an assumption, a theory, all by itself, and the evidences does not confirm it. Physics is more and more mathematical, and number theory is more and more physical (string theory can be used to give new original proof of some theorem in pure arithmetic, for example). With Mechanism, we understand why it has to be like that: the physical reality is, somehow, roughly speaking, the border of the universal mind (which is simply the mind of the universal machine). Bruno > > @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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe154c7c-5073-41bf-b1bf-dd7c3d4683f2%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe154c7c-5073-41bf-b1bf-dd7c3d4683f2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2066BD02-6648-4AE3-9F6D-51ED1617E591%40ulb.ac.be.
