John,
On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:14, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)
In the context (you might quote it, btw), by "the real universe" I
meant what remains real when we grasp that there is no assumed, or
primary, physical universe. In the context of my comment to socratus,
"real" was just for "non physical".
We assume that exists once we say "yes" to the digitalist doctor,
given that we have to assume the existence of organic brain, digital
brain, hospital, etc.
then you line up a series of "IF"-s. What about IF NOT?
Those can be other subjects of research.
You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human
logic (prime #s, 2+2=4, etc.)
It is digital machine logic and arithmetic, and with comp that forms a
much larger class than the humans.
which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural Logic building up
the World.
Terms like "Natural" and "World" are artificial and ambiguous. I have
no clue what you mean precisely by that.
Anyway, we already can prove that if we are machine, then nature and
physical worlds are themselves dependent on arithmetic.
Maybe an illogicalistics?
We are restricted in our tiny mindset and think "That's IT!"
Indeed, the mammals, and the living creatures, and the universal
numbers are all quite restricted, especially in front of the
arithmetical truth.
But their grandeur comes from that very fact. That is, the fact that,
as you illustrate yourself, they can know that they are restricted.
Eventually they learn to be agnostic with respect to ontological
commitment, and thus will use *only* expression like "IF this THEN
that", without pretending asserting any definite truth.
Looking at those 10 millennia of human evolution: we gradually get
smarter and know about more and more (rightly or wrongly).
Knowing, by definition, refers to truth. So I take your point as
saying that we gradually belief more and more (rightly or wrongly).
But like an ant exploring a dead end, we can be wrong for long time,
as we provably are in theology in case comp is correct.
But we still have no idea whether ANYTHING we think is real, of
just a fantasy in our effort to EXPLAIN the unknowables?
With comp, we will NEVER have such idea for the public domain, and we
will forever know only one first person (private) thing as real, which
is our own consciousness. With comp science is obligatory made quite
modest, and *all* our theories are forever hypothetical and agnostic.
You wrote you are "more" agnostic than myself. Does it apply to
those "if"-s?
This is ambiguous. Once we acknowledge agnosticism, we can still
provide argument, and they can be 100% communicable, by giving
explicit axioms and explicit rules of reasoning, so that anyone,
including machines, can verify, not the truth (which is not
communicable, nor even expressible) but the validity of the reasoning.
So I would say that the use of the if-s is a result of the agnosticism.
To give a typical example, I cannot prove to you that comp is true,
but I can submit to you an argument showing that IF comp is correct,
THEN the physical universe, in his standard aristotelian sense, is a
fantasy.
Bruno
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:46 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net <socra...@bezeqint.net
> wrote:
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
pursuit in life. '
What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years....
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
=.
socratus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
