Bruno, those 'idealistic' definitions from Leibnitz and Descartes are not experienced in - - what is called usually as "science". Look at the "Laws" of physics, does engineering doubt them? The statements of 'logic', arithmetic, etc. etc. are all " believed" as FIRM laws. Now that is what I call 'reductionist" = to consider a topical limited cut from the totality for the relevant (?) observations WITHIN such (what I call: model), and draw conclusions if there were nothing else to consider. That is what Academia (tenure-Nobel) does and what - as I wrote - most editing companies accept for publication. This is close to what young minds get brainwashed into in college education. e.g. Physics 101 etc. (Neurology not exempted). Absolutely different from what you and I said. No 'flexible mind' allowed. I hope you accept "my terms" for 'reductionist science' <G>, John ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruno Marchal To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:36 AM Subject: Re: Believing ...
Le 21-mars-07, à 22:18, John Mikes a écrit : > Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is > rfeductionistic > in this sense.. I agree: "SCIENCE" should be as you identified it. Thanks for telling. I thought, a bit naively perhaps, that after Descartes and Popper, say, it was part of common knowledge that science, properly understood, is an arrow from doubts to ... more and more doubts, and cannot, thus, be reductionist. You know, people like Leibniz and even the young Hilbert thought that a machine could exist capable of answering, at least in principle, all question about numbers, actually all question about machine as well, including herself. Now we know that we can interview machine as powerful as we want, as far as they remain self-referentially correct, they remain extraordinarily modest. If you ask to such a machine if she will ever say a bullshit, well, the young one crash immediately (transforming herself into a universal dovetailer btw), the older one answer that either they will say a bullshit, or that they ... might say a bullshit(*). Bruno (*) For the modalist: "I will prove a falsity or it is consistent that I will prove a falsity" Bf v DBf (same as Dt -> ~BDt). With the older modal notation: []f v <>[]f (same as <>t -> ~[]<>t ) B = [] = Godel purely arithmetical provability predicate (Beweisbar) D = <> = ~B~= ~[]~ Recall that, as Aristotle already got, ~B = D~ and ~D = B~ (in the alethic mode: not necessary p = possible not p ; not possible p = necessary not p. See my older modal posts. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007 7:44 AM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
