Le 16-août-05, à 04:59, John M a écrit :

(The original went only to Bruno's addressw)
To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Bruno, your postulate of testability is falling into

Thanks John! (I agree that testability should not be an obsession, but once you get it in a field traditionnally considered has making untestable propositions , it is hard to resist pointing on the feature, and also, it is the best way to attract people for many other scientific community, among the contemplators, for example.

 Proof within the model can be applied
to testable events within the model.

Logicians make jumps back and forth between theories and models (note the plural).

If the model
proves too narrow, you have to 'assume' beyond and
'theorize' beyond the in-model testability. Then,
later on, you may find indications whether your
assumed novelty is 'solid' or discardable.


Most of the discussions on this list since the early
90s are non-testable.

I would add many nuances. Thay are degree of non-testability. Tests can be indirect, or on some horizon. Tests can address matter of consistency or necessity.

 I cannot measure the blood
pressure of the white rabbit or the length of all the
universes. Hal Ruhl (and myself, not far from his)
presented some worldview without testable origins.

But it is very hard to prove something is not testable. You need to anticipate many conclusions of your saying before.

We should not 'wall in' ourselves into the existing
framework of a testable ambiance if we want to think

We should not wall ourself. Comma.

Justifiability is another question, but it
can be raised later on.
The same may apply to the 'screening' by human logic
(formal or not) and we have plenty of examples on this
list when human logic was not applied as a liiting

Take Lobian logics.  (I am joking, partially ;)

 I would not restrict nature (te wholeness) to
anything we can muster in our capabilities.

No. But my point is that if we just take digital mechanism seriously enough then, necessarily, the observable wholeness emerges from what lobian machines can dream about their capacities.

The beauty of it, is that, continuing assuming comp after that reversal, it can be shown that it is NOT a restriction of Nature or of Whatever. By incompleteness, to believe it is a restriction, is a lack of modesty in front of the unknown (assuming comp!!!).



Reply via email to