Le 12-sept.-07, à 00:41, John Mikes a écrit :

> Bruno, you ARE a teacher (a good and passionate one) but your 
> imagination is insufficient. You cannot imagine how much I don't 
> know.  pick up 'words' and 'phrases' and apply common sense to them 
> with a certain authoritative flair, so  those who understand the topic 
> can think that I am talking sense. As I already confessed: I never 
> studied logics and cannot 'read' the signs (nor can I 'decipher' those 
> equational formats) you all apply in otherwise human sentences. They 
> look like math to me.



They are math! It is the game I play. I like very much David Deutsch's 
idea that if we are scientist we are in principle willing to know that 
our theory is wrong, but to discover this we have to take them 
seriously enough.





> And i still did not get an acceptable explanation why 'numbers' are 
> the basics of everything (and WHAT they may be). 


Nobody can KNOW that. The fact is that ONCE you take the comp hyp 
seriously enough into consideration, then you can, by work, be 
eventually convince that our own immateriality (which follows easily by 
comp) has to be "contagious" on our possible neighborhoods.





>  Those numbers applied in mathematical formal language are definitely 
> products of the human mind,


yes sure. But we are not talking about those numbers humans 
(re)invented, but on those which have to exist independently of us once 
we accept some minimal amount of computer science, without which we 
could infer nothing fron comp (our, well mine, working hypothesis).




> as David Bohm so clearly stated.


No problem, Bohm is a serious guy, he makes clear he does not accept 
the comp hyp at the start. Bohm is serious, and as far as I can jujudge 
by my reding, he is 100% correct. But he denies comp.



> I know: you represent the opposite way: not numbers from thinking, but 
> existence, ith all pertinent to it FROM numbers, which I reject just 
> as the 'personalized creator'  in an any other form.


You could be right. The point we are addressing is the question of 
making our hypotheses clear enough so that we can refute them or make 
sense of how we could have them refuted at least in principle.




> I also keep away from ANY thought experiences, they are products of 
> OUR state of the mind at the time they are 'invented'. 


All proof in math are particular case of thought experiments. In 
philosophy-of-mind, theology, theoretical physics and math, the only 
tools available are the thought experiments.




>  In deducing some explanations from 'phenomena' we think we 
> experienced (depends upon the actual level of our observational and 
> explanatory cpacity)  I always put an uncertainty in it,


I totally agree with you here!



> because the Flat Earth did not prove true later, either.


We have no proof that the earth is round, only solid evidence that the 
roundity of earth is a solid *local* truth.



> (Now geocentrism is true again, after Einstein, because it is quite 
> arbitrary that we can decide as a (relative) center for all others, no 
> matter how complicated the math would be...).
> I am in subconscious trouble with the machine, which is differently 
> identified by Robert Rosen and I find a lot acceptable in his ideas.


Imo, Rosen is wrong on Church thesis. But this could wait when I 
succeed to explain more about CT later ...


>  God and the angels are also hard: I do not go for assumption-based 
> consequences (not true: everything is such), in fairytales of 
> non-logical hearsay.


Just keep track of the definitions. By angels and gods (note the 
plural) I mean things which are not turing-emulable, or if you prefer, 
any entities which are provably not machines.




> I go with Colin's "mini solipsism" as I call it, the world is what we 
> make of it for ourselves.


I am a realist. I guess there is something more than me. The rest, the, 
can be justified as first person points of view.



>  I use my own logic, it served me well for many decades, and my 
> 'narrative' about the world and its installation is such (and only 
> such) as it entertains me and my logic. Not the conventional sciences.


What is conventional sciences. If by this you mean that sometimes the 
academy gives grades and honours wrongly, then you are right but this 
is really "human too much human" as Nietzche said once. We have no 
choice to learn with this facts. I prefer to talk about science, and 
describe some science has being wrong from time to time (like when Bohr 
dismissed Everett, just because what Everett said contradicted his 
(Bohr) wishfull thinking. Science = doubt and modesty. When scientist 
pretend to know the truth, they are mad, that's all.



> After 5 decades of successful polymer chemistry (38 patents, 3 
> continent consulting) I do not accept the existence of atoms and 
> molecules,


Nor do I believe in the primary nature of those notion. Plotinus (+300) 
did already understand that such notions were inconsistent with the 
more primitive platonic ideas. Now, I could accept that atoms (the 
modern one), like the spherical hypothesis about the earth are 
excellent local theories.




> they are 'math' based explanatory sweat-products of the past 2-300 
> years for observations mostly misunderstood.


I can agree. But still, without taking those ideas seriously enough, we 
will never know them wrong. Science is really the ability to be wrong 
in a way as clear as possible; so you can hope to know being wrong soon 
enough.




> Natural law is a statistical mistake by counting matching 
> observations(?) within a selected 'model' (cut-off domain) of vision.
> Use a wider 'model' and different 'laws' will appear.

Not necessarily, and it depends what you mean by "model".




> If you have some empty Google time, I wrote a 'worldview'-like (now
> obsolete) piece on the KARL JASPERS FORUM (TA-62MIK) on networks of 
> networks in 2003.


I have read it, I think, quite a time ago. Please gives a link, so that 
I can reread it.



> And one thing: I am an anti-teacher, I don't want to persuade anybody 
> to accept MY views.


No serious scientist will ever try to convince others (except for the 
mundane purpose of getting some funds). As I said a scientist, not only 
does not want to convince others, he want others to show him wrong 
instead. You confuse scientists, and mediatico-pseudo-scientists, which 
can exist still today due to 1500 years of abandon of the fundamental 
question to political pseudo-religious authorities. Of course they have 
had no choice, because it is best to do pseudo-science than to burn 
alive ... (I don't judge them here).




> I offer them for consideration - period.
> Sorry for the longwinded chit-chat.


Don't be sorry, I like to chat on those questions, as you know, and it 
gives us some opportunities to clarify (or not) ourselves. Key point 
here for me: science = doubt = modesty= acknowledgment of ignorance = 
lack of any communicable certainty = questions sharing (never 
"definitive answers" sharing).

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to