I Are Nicolas Gisin's Intuitionist Mathematics Theories Compatible with SR and GR?

[lektroon]

Hello,

As a layman in physics, I wonder the ideas of people who have more knowledge in physics than I do about the theories of Swiss Physicist Nicolas Gisin and his arguments about the intuitionist mathematics. Is there a way to reconcile these ideas with more fundamental theories like SR and GR?

Kind Regards,

 

[Nugatory]

Do you have some references?

 

[DrChinese]

As a layman in physics, I wonder the ideas of people who have more knowledge in physics than I do about the theories of Swiss Physicist Nicolas Gisin and his arguments about the intuitionist mathematics. Is there a way to reconcile these ideas with more fundamental theories like SR and GR?

[This thread probably belongs in the Interpretations and Foundations subforum.] Here's a reference I looked at. Admittedly, the only reason I even looked at this is because of Gisin's name. @lektroon I find it hard to believe you are a layman.

Indeterminism in Physics and Intuitionistic Mathematics

There really is no scientific utility in his line of reasoning. And he's probably not likely to have much success with the GR side of the community. I do find it interesting, as I generally reject the idea that the future is predetermined (as he does). And probably for some of the same reasons as he. But the following are issues for me in papers like this:

a) There is no specific prediction for something to be investigated or tested.
b) There are so many speculative ideas out there that can be said to hold "promise"; and yet only the rare few really do produce. No one really knows what "promising" ideas will lead to something worthy - if only more time were to be invested. So why "bet" on this one?

However... I think the paper is worth reading though - if nothing else for a section I would never have imagined to read in any paper. Keep in mind I am not a mathematician, and many of you may know this formula/idea already. His formula (5), coupled with footnote [16] at bottom of page, caught my eye. It allows one to calculate any digit of π without needing to calculate any prior digits.

His point is that an infinite series such as π must really be predetermined, and cannot therefore truly be random (as it might otherwise appear - I always thought π appeared to yield a random number sequence). He contrasts that (predetermination and the mere appearance of randomness) with the idea that our observable universe must have a different kind of randomness being injected into it.

That different kind precluding any possibility that the future is predetermined (i.e. there is no way to "calculate" the future, regardless of how much you know about the present). His footnote [17]:

In an indeterministic world the weather in both one and two years’ time is, today, undetermined. In two years time it will be determined. However, first the weather in one year from now will be determined. This is in strong contrast to the bits of π that can be accessed - and are thus determined - without first accessing the previous ones.

Pretty esoteric stuff. I think it's 4:20 somewhere...

 

[PeterDonis]

[This thread probably belongs in the Interpretations and Foundations subforum.]

Quite possibly it does, but we need some specific references from the OP to be sure.

 

[lektroon]

Do you have some references?

For starters, you may read one of his articles which can be found under the following link:

https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/gisin/TimeReallyPasses.pdf

 

[lektroon]

Quite possibly it does, but we need some specific references from the OP to be sure.

That is perfectly fine by me. However, IDK how to move it.

 

[lektroon]

[This thread probably belongs in the Interpretations and Foundations subforum.] Here's a reference I looked at. Admittedly, the only reason I even looked at this is because of Gisin's name. @lektroon I find it hard to believe you are a layman.

Indeterminism in Physics and Intuitionistic Mathematics

There really is no scientific utility in his line of reasoning. And he's probably not likely to have much success with the GR side of the community. I do find it interesting, as I generally reject the idea that the future is predetermined (as he does). And probably for some of the same reasons as he. But the following are issues for me in papers like this:

a) There is no specific prediction for something to be investigated or tested.
b) There are so many speculative ideas out there that can be said to hold "promise"; and yet only the rare few really do produce. No one really knows what "promising" ideas will lead to something worthy - if only more time were to be invested. So why "bet" on this one?

However... I think the paper is worth reading though - if nothing else for a section I would never have imagined to read in any paper. Keep in mind I am not a mathematician, and many of you may know this formula/idea already. His formula (5), coupled with footnote [16] at bottom of page, caught my eye. It allows one to calculate any digit of π without needing to calculate any prior digits.

His point is that an infinite series such as π must really be predetermined, and cannot therefore truly be random (as it might otherwise appear - I always thought π appeared to yield a random number sequence). He contrasts that (predetermination and the mere appearance of randomness) with the idea that our observable universe must have a different kind of randomness being injected into it.

That different kind precluding any possibility that the future is predetermined (i.e. there is no way to "calculate" the future, regardless of how much you know about the present). His footnote [17]:

In an indeterministic world the weather in both one and two years’ time is, today, undetermined. In two years time it will be determined. However, first the weather in one year from now will be determined. This is in strong contrast to the bits of π that can be accessed - and are thus determined - without first accessing the previous ones.

Pretty esoteric stuff. I think it's 4:20 somewhere...

Thanks for the reply. Gisin actually kind of adapted the ideas of Dutch mathematician, Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer into physics. Therefore, these procedures that you have found "promising" have some basis. Moreover, Gisin is mainly an experimental physicists and he proposed some tests to check his "esoteric assertions" in his other publications rather than the one you shared. He is at least definitely not a crackpot, believe me :)

 

[Nugatory]

Is there a way to reconcile these ideas with more fundamental theories like SR and GR?….
For starters, you may read one of his articles which can be found under the following link:
https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/gisin/TimeReallyPasses.pdf

There’s nothing to reconcile here. One is physics and the other is philosophy.

In accordance with the forum rule about philosophical discussions, this thread is closed. As with all thread closures, if you believe that the closure is premature and you have something to add, you can ask any mentor to reopen it.