/sci/ - Science & Math

Digital physics - theory of everything, theory of nothing

>>2234589
>>2234599
I'll believe it when you construct the proof. Scientific skepticism and all that.

"Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics" alludes to the fact that any effective theory of everything will also have to be an effective theory of nothing.

http://www.torrenthound.com/hash/4b7c6e26c61718420d6a09b13e326e07eed68dc4/torrent-info/Zero-To-Infin
ity-The-Foundations-Of-Physics-sleclub-h33t-Torrent--btjunkie

At this time, I am not making a claim that it is in fact the case that "mathematics = reality", I am criticizing the claim that "mathematics != reality" as there is no evidence that I am aware of that refutes the former hypothesis.

So "it's a metaphysical assertion" "It is rational" and "it assumes the law of non-contradiction"? Let's see it formally. Prove it. I say the system does not make the assumptions, we make the assumptions for the purpose of argument. We are not compelled to make any particular assumptions without need. In fact, Occam's razor says we should not make more assumptions than are needed.

I pointed out that Godel's proof uses proof by contradiction and excluded middle. We can not guarantee his proof holds in a system which rejects those things. I know of one such system which rejects those and expresses quantum computation from which holographic principle emerges. Which to me suggests greater support for mathematics = reality than mathematics != reality.

>>2170957
This explains nothing. Where is force exerted upon you and by what? You provide no resistance to the portals being brought together. There will be no equal and opposite reactive force against you. Where then does the force originate to crush you?

Just struck me, we should look at this through the lens of the Geometrization/Poincare theorem.

Topologically, you become the space the portals are reflecting neglecting atmosphere.

>>2120871
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507155

>>2011967
First off, you mad.
Second off apparently, bitches don't know about my free-will theorem or my non-locality implies free-will argument:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3612
Maybe, you've not read these things in the context of Metamath! or GEB.

bump

>>1984278
Autism, as a condition, is a set of neurological, genetic, and behavioral differences. Characterized by delay in the synthesis of inter-sensory information and a lack of noise in their visual field.

10 coins. No, I'm not wrong.

what's the best way to learn the language of maths?

specially Linear algebra

/sci/ if I give you an operator that acts like an equals sign for some percentage of the time, what can you do with it?

P0 z0=z1 P1 asserts P0 is equivalent to P1 with a probability of z0 and P1 is equivalent to P0 with a probability of z1. I call it equal-by-degree. One immediate implication is that sometimes it turns out that they are not equal by a co-measurable degree.

>>1927813
I'm sorry you don't understand. The universe is a computer. We are it's programmers. Learn about quantum computation, the free will theorem, the holographic principle, and the mathematical universe hypothesis. The universe is a joined set of classical and quantum realities interacting with one another. Quantum is the unary system where as classical is the binary system. Choice exists at the foundation of the binary system. Determinism is the binary world. It is without choice everything is decided or undecided. C-machines are necessary to decide undecided states. That's life. We hit the theory of evolution. The evolution of the joint realities can be described by statistical distributions of both the quantum and classical systems. The reason we can't distinguish choice from randomness is because we're never absolutely certain of another entity's choice if we have free will until they have decided that choice, IE measured.