On 23 Sep 2013, at 03:16, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote:

Bruno, if you have something new to say about this "proof" of yours then say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3
steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous.

 John K Clark

John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to
summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first
three steps.

Good idea.

I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR
(on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever
remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall
several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just
missed it. I'm sceptical of the "hundreds of posts" claim, though.

Well, a lot. But John seemed to only change the definitions all the time, ignoring the fixed definition I gave to first person and third person in that context. He was confusing 1-views with 3-views, and at some point 3-views on 1- views with 1-views on 1-views. The last version of it was as refutable as 1=1, and john Clark said it was nothing new, but then confused all forms of indeterminacies.

I will try to not intervene, and I am curious to see if John will succeed in making his point for somebody else, and then I will discuss with that somebody else, to avoid the indeed loop we were going through.

I appreciate you ask this.

For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the
intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that
will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all
into a comprehensible document.

Nice. I am "all ear", we say in french. It means I am looking forward to it.

I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he
would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that
later when I finish it.

I read a book by Aaronson sometimes ago, but, like many, he did not go out of the frame of Aristotle notion of reality in that book. I will take a look to the paper. ... After a glimpse overview, If he is correct, and if comp is correct, it would only mean that his "freebits" would emerge from the numbers law; but I am not sure if I need to believe in such a use of "free" for free-will. The compatibilist approach is enough. Randomness adds nothing as this has been often debated. To be quick here ...




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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to