On 14 Sep 2011, at 07:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the rules.
That's
why I say it's circular reasoning. I ask you what is a rule, and
you
say it's at the bottom of laws, but laws are just another word for
rule. There is no bottom, because there's nothing there. It's an
intellectual construct.
Of course it's an intellectual construct, but it has predictive
power.
I agree. Deferent and epicycle have predictive power too. It doesn't
mean they can't be understood in a greater context with more
explanatory if not predictive power.
And that's what Bruno is trying to do - provide explanations in
terms of arithmetic; which he takes as basic. But explanation is
cheaper than prediction.
But comp predicts, given that it predicts the predictable observable.
To get more quantitative results asks for a lot of work and time. But
comp predicts all what is predictible, at different levels or
modalities, and it predict in principle much more given that it gives
a glimpse on the complexity of death and all first person possible
experiences. It shows also the abyssal complexity of numbers'
epistemologies, and it frees the universal machine from all normative
theories (the usual velleity of "other" local universal machines).
It is not for practical quantitative prediction, at least not before
we get the physical laws from numbers' theology, but we are interested
in fundamental question, aren't we?
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.
