On 14 Apr 2013, at 01:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013  Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>> There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology.

> > After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously.

> That is not valid.

If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously.

You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice.

So if self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines can assert similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine claims that the other machine's reports are self-referential artifacts, then how can you say that self-referentially correct machines assert anything in particular? Where are you getting the sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that humans, often incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support or contradict any position or belief?

When a machine is self-referentially correct, it is always relative to some other universal machine. That is why in the formal theory we must start from one Turing universal system, like (N, +, *).

Also, a belief can be both self-referential and referential. In "I see the moon", there is a simultaneous reference and self-reference. Both can be correct.







About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only.

Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on assuming that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me.

Give me any date, and any program doing a chart from a date, and I will give you *many* examples which fits. To make your point, you must not look at the chart of a small sample of people by date, but on a rather large sample.

Now, if this has been done, give me the references. Because statistics can be misused very easily too.

And for someone seeming to dislike determinacy, what would that mean? A new way to discriminate people?

Bruno







Craig


Bruno





> It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid).

Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth.

> To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,

I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year.

> Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology.

I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them.

  John K Clark


--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.



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.


Reply via email to