On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Sigh.... Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the
complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they
are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are
formalized. Is that fair?
The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware
of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are
criticizing me because I don't have one?
What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory
accurately describes reality or not is a much more important
criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics
described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its
current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted.
Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.
Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if
there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is
apparently quite tightly formalized
The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in
logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where
the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF).
but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to
indicate it actually applies to reality at all.
Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no
consistency with actual reality.
Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the
maker of the theory).
The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"?
Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality
Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your
theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist,
or "highly non computationalist).
because it clearly states that the computations of its computational
reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real
processes of nature, whatever they are.
terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be
defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of
computation, you should (re)defined that term too.
Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated
assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow
even if it's doing nothing.
I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as
non sense many times on this list.
I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All*
scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for
example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming
arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a
big discovery.
A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for
whatsoever.
It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it.
Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that
initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the
assumption itself isn't.
I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of
scientific method.
I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic
assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one.
Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is
its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed
phenomena.
It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of
explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear
inconsistent.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
