On 02 Aug 2009, at 23:20, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:

>
>
>>> I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
>>> google gave me upon entering
>>> Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
>>
>>
>> Well 144?
>>
>> Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
>> list or the FOR list.
>
> I am sorry for the delay, I've just got back from my vacation.
>
> Hmm. The above written search should not return any references to your
> papers/letters as the minus sign in front of your name asks for an
> exclusion.
>
> Given that it works as supposed google then gives only 1 hit in my
> location (Sweden). That hit is a translation of the word  
> "Theaetetical"
> into some eastern characters. Thus, I end up with zero meaningful hits
> and a feeling that you might be the only one using this word.
>
> That makes me insists a little bit more (in a very polite way) that,
> occasionally, your work is
> "difficult to read unless one is willing to undertake long
>  discussions, clarifications and position adjustments."
>
> I am writing this in a reference to your complains that sometimes you
> have troubles to get enough relevant feedback to your work.



Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from  
"Theatetus".
"Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google.
"Theatetus" wiki 4310.

By "theatetical notion of knowledge", I mean the "well known" attempts  
to define "knowledge" by Theaetetus in Plato's Theaetetus. The most  
known definition is "truye justified belief", that Bill taylor just  
mentionned on the FOR list recently as:
"This old crock should have been given a decent burial long ago."
I guess I will have to make a comment ...


My work is, without doubt, very difficult to read because it crosses  
three or four fields: "mathematical logic", "philosophy of mind" and  
"computer science";  + quantum mechanics to evaluate the plausibility  
of the derived computationalist physics. This does not help in an  
epoch of hyper-specialization.
I am also using a deductive approach in the philosophy of mind. I am  
apparently the first to *postulate* "mechanism".  Most philosophers of  
mind accept mechanism as the only rational theory, or reject it with  
some passion. Few, if any, use it as an hypothesis, in a deductive  
strategy. Then mathematical logic is virtually unknown, except by  
mathematical logicians, who, for historical reasons, do not want to  
come back to the earlier philosophical motivations: they want to be  
accepted as pure mathematicians. Except the philosophical logicians,  
who in majority criticized classical logic, and see philosphy as a  
mean to criticize classical philosophy. Mathematicians are so used to  
classical philosophy, that they consider it as science, and hate to be  
remind that this is still a philosophical.

I have no feedback for purely contingent reason related to facts which  
have nothing to do with the startling feature of the conclusion of the  
reasoning. Up to now, I heard continuously about critics on an  
imaginary work I have never done. The price of the best PhD thesis  
that I got in France has eventually only spread those rumor from  
Brussels to elsewhere.
All real scientist who have studied my work and have accepted to meet  
me, or to write a real report on it, have understood it. True, some  
took a rather long time to understand, but that is normal: the subject  
matter is very complex, and still taboo, especially for the atheists,  
and other religious-based thinkers. But when they study it, they  
quickly discover that I use the scientific method, that is I am just  
asking a question, what is wrong with the following reasoning? ... The  
reasoning is decomposed in "easy" steps, so people accepting (for  
personal belief or for the sake of the argument) the hypotheses and  
wanting to reject the conclusion have a way to put their fingers on  
some problems.

UDA has been judged to obvious and simple in Brussels, and that is why  
I have augmented the thesis with the AUDA, which unfortunately is  
considered as ... too much simple for logicians, and too much  
difficult for non logicians. But AUDA is not needed at all to  
understand the simple and clear result: if we are digitalisable  
machine, the laws of physics emerge from a statistics on computations,  
in a verifiable way (quantitatively and qualitatively). The result is  
very simple and clear: the reasoning which leads to that result is  
much more subtle and difficult.

I am not at all pretending that reasoning is correct. Science progress  
when people do errors, but we have to find them, and sometimes, if we  
don't find them, we have to accept momentarily the conclusion, perhaps  
with the hope an error will be find later. But the attitude of a (tiny  
but influencing) part of the community consists in hiding the  
reasoning, or deforming it completely. This can't help.

Some people, even here recently (see 1Z's post) and recently on the  
FOR list, attributes me a curious theory, where they confuse the  
conclusion with the postulate (which deprives the work of *any*  
meaning). But the theory I am studying is the old "mechanist theory",  
in its modern digital version, and nothing else. So, if they have a  
genuine interest in the subject, we would begin to learn something if  
they can criticize some point in the reasoning, instead of ignoring  
it, or attributing it statements without ever referring to a relevant  
piece of text. Of course they can't point on such text, given that  
such information exists only in their mind. They repeat rumors, and  
have clearly not take time to read the papers.

The fact that the result would contradict the current paradigm does  
not help, of course, but is not, yet, the source of the problem.




>> I let those interested to meditate on two questions (N is {0, 1, 2,  
>> 3,
>> 4, ...}):
>>
>> 1) What is common between the set of all subsets of a set with n
>> elements, and the set of all finite sequences of "0" and "1" of  
>> length
>> n.
>> 2) What is common between the set of all subsets of N, and the set of
>> all infinite sequences of "0" and "1".
>>
>> Just some (finite and infinite) bread for surviving the day :)
>
> I am going to catch up with the thread ...

Welcome back Mirek. Feel free to ask for any clarification, position  
adjustments, question, at any level ...Do you understand what is the  
comp hypothesis?

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to