By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml, there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book.
Terren On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruno, > > Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was > wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... > > Edgar > > > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> 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. > -- 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.
