On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:23, John Mikes wrote:
Brent and Bruno here is the main question: what would you identify
"REALITY" by?
If comp is correct, or *in* the comp theory, I identify the ontology
with the arithmetical truth/reality, and the epistemological reality
with the internal first person points of view of the machines (and non
machines) internal to arithmetic.
Another similar "I dunno" question to Bruno: what would you call " F
A C T " - the non knowable TRUTH(???), or what we happen to know
today?
In science there is no knowledge as such. It is always assumptions. I
is better to bet that all our theories are wrong. This prevents bad
philosophical use. Science is only belief, and only God knows if some
of our beliefs are true. We never know that, but we can do bets. When
so bets are repeatable and verifiable by enough peers, we can (at
least momentarily) call them facts. Usually we have to trust people
for that, because most facts cannot be reproduce in the kitchen. By
default, I will say that we have detected the Higgs boson, but how
could I really know that?
Compare 'facts' - as believed millennia ago with our present
imagination (OOOPS: knowledge).
As explained by historical views our inventory of the 'infinite'
world is enriching steadily.
Yes, and now it is even necessary the case for arithmetic. Our
knowledge of it is infinitely "enrichable".
To assume that our present one is the final and complete would be
unfounded,
Yes.
so postulating a "further" exploration does not require KNOWLEDGE of
what we want to explore.
Sure. We need only beliefs, bets, hopes, etc.
My argument stays that if Bruno found it necessary to SPECIFY (=
restrict?) math. reality, there MAY BE MORE to it. (E.g. the NON-
math kind?)
Indeed, arithmetic seen from inside is provably (in comp!) containing
a lot of non-math things (like person, consciousness, matter, gods and
godesses, etc.)
Speaking about agnosticism: I define mine as a belief system with
presently (still?) unknown domains/details.
I would say that all scientists should think like that.
Science has put itself in the position of "I believe SOME, - I doubt
SOME".
it should, at least.
Physics is an ingenious Science based on the constantly changing
inventory deduced from our (latest?) representation for phenomena we
got for observation (done strictly at the level of yesterday's
knowledge base). There is a hard-to-limit (I would not call it
'infinite) amount of theories and
in Bruno's quote below:
"... science can be said to be based on faith in an (unknown)
reality. Then our assumptions and theories are just interrogation,
and we never pretend it is true. The exploration of reality is done
with usually false theories, that we can correct or abandon when
refuted by sufficiently repeatable facts.
Bruno"
'sufficiently repeatable facts' are conclusions upon (his again)
'usually false theories'.
100000 false theories do not make 1 true..
Indeed. But with some chance, 100000 false theories can bring a 100001
theories slightly less wrong. Of course it can happen that it is
slightly less correct too, and that is why in science we have only
beliefs. Knowledge is private, and can be said to concerns only
consciousness here-and-now. I think that we agree.
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.
