A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

[ronaldheld]

arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Flammarion]

I've seen John Baez suggest that

On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld <RonaldH...@...> wrote:
> arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
> Any comments?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[david.nyman]

On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion <peterdjo...@...> wrote:

> I've seen John Baez suggest that

For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
stayed up so late watching "Woodstock - the director's cut").

Were those really the days?

D

>
> On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld <RonaldH...@...> wrote:
>
> > arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
> > Any comments?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Jesse Mazer]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

David Nyman wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion <peterdjo...@...> wrote:
>
> > I've seen John Baez suggest that
>
> For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
> stayed up so late watching "Woodstock - the director's cut").

In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of this interview: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/interview1.html 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[david.nyman]

2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer <lasermazer@...>:

> David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion <peterdjo...@...> wrote:
>>
>> > I've seen John Baez suggest that
>>
>> For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
>> stayed up so late watching "Woodstock - the director's cut").
>
> In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of this interview:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/interview1.html

Groovy!

D

>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Aug 2009, at 16:23, ronaldheld wrote:

>
> arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
> Any comments?


Very cute little paper.

I think the author would have found gravity waves, and thus space-
time, by extending its approach to the Octonions (I intuit this since  
my reading of Kaufman book on knots and physics).

Of course, despite apparent mathematicalism, this is still physics,  
and the computationalist mind body problem is not addressed.

I have independent reason that such an octonionic physical theory is  
basically right, but to show this with respect to the comp hyp, it is  
nessary to derive such a theory from the "intelligible hypostases",  
that is from the correct variant of the provability logic. I can come  
back on this when more is said on the "intelligible hypostases").

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
 I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases
.                       Ronald


On Aug 18, 2:58 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:

> On 17 Aug 2009, at 16:23, ronaldheld wrote:
>
>
>
> > arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
> > Any comments?
>
> Very cute little paper.
>
> I think the author would have found gravity waves, and thus space-
> time, by extending its approach to the Octonions (I intuit this since  
> my reading of Kaufman book on knots and physics).
>
> Of course, despite apparent mathematicalism, this is still physics,  
> and the computationalist mind body problem is not addressed.
>
> I have independent reason that such an octonionic physical theory is  
> basically right, but to show this with respect to the comp hyp, it is  
> nessary to derive such a theory from the "intelligible hypostases",  
> that is from the correct variant of the provability logic. I can come  
> back on this when more is said on the "intelligible hypostases").
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

Ronald,

On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:14, ronaldheld wrote:

I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases

Have you heard about Gödel's provability (beweisbar) predicate bew(x)?

If you have, define con(x) by ~bew ('~x')  (carefully taking into account the Gödel numbering). Con is for contingent, or consistent.

Then the logic of the intelligible matter hypostases are given by the predicate Bew(x) & Con(x)

(The sensible, non intelligible, hypostases, cannot be defined by a predicate, and some detour in Modal logic is necessary, but for each arithmetical propositions p, you can define them by Bp & Dp & p.  (Dp is ~B ~p, Bp is bew('p'))

Note that Bp & Dp & p is "obviously" equivalent to p, for any correct machine, but no correct machine can see that equivalence, and this is a consequence of incompleteness). 

You can read my Plotinus paper for more, if interested.

You can also read Plotinus II, 4: "On Matter". Plotinus took Aristotle not quite Platonist theory of matter, and recasted it in "his" (neo)Platonist doctrine.  

Basically, matter, for Aristotle---Plotinus is what is indeterminate. If fits well with comp where matter is the indeterminate computations which exist below the comp substitution level (by step 7). 

I have not really the time to say much more for now, and this is in AUDA, and it is better to get UDA straight before. I think.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
 the Plotinus paper is the first one on your list of publications on
your website?
                Ronald

On Aug 18, 10:46 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:

> Ronald,
>
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:14, ronaldheld wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
> > I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases
>
> Have you heard about Gödel's provability (beweisbar) predicate bew(x)?
>
> If you have, define con(x) by ~bew ('~x')  (carefully taking into  
> account the Gödel numbering). Con is for contingent, or consistent.
>
> Then the logic of the intelligible matter hypostases are given by the  
> predicate Bew(x) & Con(x)
>
> (The sensible, non intelligible, hypostases, cannot be defined by a  
> predicate, and some detour in Modal logic is necessary, but for each  
> arithmetical propositions p, you can define them by Bp & Dp & p.  (Dp  
> is ~B ~p, Bp is bew('p'))
> Note that Bp & Dp & p is "obviously" equivalent to p, for any correct  
> machine, but no correct machine can see that equivalence, and this is  
> a consequence of incompleteness).
>
> You can read my Plotinus paper for more, if interested.
>
> You can also read Plotinus II, 4: "On Matter". Plotinus took Aristotle  
> not quite Platonist theory of matter, and recasted it in  
> "his" (neo)Platonist doctrine.
>
> Basically, matter, for Aristotle---Plotinus is what is indeterminate.  
> If fits well with comp where matter is the indeterminate computations  
> which exist below the comp substitution level (by step 7).
>
> I have not really the time to say much more for now, and this is in  
> AUDA, and it is better to get UDA straight before. I think.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Aug 2009, at 18:41, ronaldheld wrote:

Bruno:
the Plotinus paper is the first one on your list of publications on
your website?

Yes.

It is also the "pdf" on my home page, at the right of

A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter

Or this:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

It has been published since, I should decide to update my web page.

You may have some idea of the idea, but this is really AUDA and the math part presupposes some mathematical logic. It was a congress in logic and computer science.

Bruno

               Ronald

On Aug 18, 10:46 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:

Ronald,

On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:14, ronaldheld wrote:

I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.

I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases

Have you heard about Gödel's provability (beweisbar) predicate bew(x)?

If you have, define con(x) by ~bew ('~x')  (carefully taking into  

account the Gödel numbering). Con is for contingent, or consistent.

Then the logic of the intelligible matter hypostases are given by the  

predicate Bew(x) & Con(x)

(The sensible, non intelligible, hypostases, cannot be defined by a  

predicate, and some detour in Modal logic is necessary, but for each  

arithmetical propositions p, you can define them by Bp & Dp & p.  (Dp  

is ~B ~p, Bp is bew('p'))

Note that Bp & Dp & p is "obviously" equivalent to p, for any correct  

machine, but no correct machine can see that equivalence, and this is  

a consequence of incompleteness).

You can read my Plotinus paper for more, if interested.

You can also read Plotinus II, 4: "On Matter". Plotinus took Aristotle  

not quite Platonist theory of matter, and recasted it in  

"his" (neo)Platonist doctrine.

Basically, matter, for Aristotle---Plotinus is what is indeterminate.  

If fits well with comp where matter is the indeterminate computations  

which exist below the comp substitution level (by step 7).

I have not really the time to say much more for now, and this is in  

AUDA, and it is better to get UDA straight before. I think.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---