On 9/15/2011 12:49 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
you know I am not one of 'those' taking EM for granted (rather consider such things as
ingenious HUMAN explanatory proposals for poorly understood phenomena we think to
receive over the millennia).
*_Statistical,_* however, is a consequence not only of the description WHAT we watch,
but also of the /*DOMAIN - in which we count the replies.*/ Extend/shrink the borders
and the end-result will change.
*_Logical?_* of course we mean HUMAN logic. The ways we get along in the limited model
of our so far acquired perceived reality of the world - OUR WAY./ I wonder if you
presume the Universal Computer to cover a wider knowledge-base than our present
limitations and apply different ways of drawing conclusions from those rules in (your)
logical studies?/
One more of my 'beefs':
Our rules (including: physical LAWS) are observational (statistical?) deductions in
human knowledge. They *CONTROL - or INSTIGATE* nothing. They are descriptions of what we
think is going on, paraphrased in our - mostly math-involving - human-logical
(conventional?) sciences.
Right. And we express them in mathematics and logic because that ensures (insofar as
possible) that they are free of self-contradiction. If we say something that is
self-contradictory we fail to express anything.
We don't know how our figments (e.g. EM) RELATE to the natural change to which we think
is related to. We have no DIRECT input of the RELATIONS in nature that control(?) the
changes - the perception of which we receive in some human idea.
They are related only in that we know the rules (and the meta-rule of induction) have
worked in the past.
Brent
"There can be no demonstrative argument to prove that those instances in which we have no
experience, resemble those of which we have had experience."
--- David Hume
It is a reverse view between 'physical law' and what we consider as happenings. Not even
a description.
We can calculate in many cases by those 'rules' and *MAY* get right answers
(predictions) - our technology is ALMOST good. (Some mishaps still occur and if you
state a 'match' to the 16th decimal, go to units in an order of magnitude 17 places to
the right and you have no match even in integers.)
Best regards
John Mikes
--
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.
