[FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?

[Gus Koehler]

Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 On
Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on contemporary
limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics: 

-- Common sense is not an adequate test to establish unquestioned validity
-- The principal of "incomplete determination of theory by experience"
creates difficulties for Pythagoras (complete mathematical theory of the
universe)  because it so happens that there are 3 distinct theories, all o f
them ground on the general quantum rules, yielding essentially the same
observational predictions, but widely differing concerning the ideas they
call forth.  These theories are the "theory of the Dirac sea," "Feynman
graph theory," and "quantum field theory."
-- Locality as particles, and so forth are not the constitutive materials of
the universe there is only a "something", a wholeness of some sort.
-- Nonseparability or nonlocality is the foundation of this wholeness (work
by Bell and experiments by Aspect and others)
-- Objectivity language as providing a grammatical form that makes it
possible to speak of essentially contingent space- and time-localized data
as existing quite INDEPENDENT of us generates insurmountable difficulties.
-- The cop-out of saying its all "just a model", in particular the standard
model, only results in ignoring the fact that the observed is entangled in
measurement--but such a model fails because it does not leave out the
classical requirement of objectivity or of no reference to us.

Check it out.

Gus


Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
President and Principal
Time Structures, Inc.
1545 University Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895
Cell: 916-716-1740
www.timestructures.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf
Of steve smith
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?

I'm waiting for Wolfram to weigh in....

Carl Tollander wrote:
> Some are sympathetic but have reservations.
> Sabine  Hossenfelder:  
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exceptio
> n-of.html
> and
> Christine Dantas: 
> http://egregium.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/physics-needs-independent-thi
> nkers/
> and
> Peter Woit:  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617
> and
> John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html
> and
> Steinn Sigurðsson: 
> http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/11/overly_simple_theory_of_so
> meth.php
>
> Some of the sharp-elbow folks have stronger reservations.
> Lubos Motl: 
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
> and
> Jacques Distler: 
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html
>   


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org