On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, [email protected] wrote:
I am not sure if I have any clue where we would differ, nor if that
has any relevance with the reasoning I suggest, to formulate a
problem, and reduce one problem into another.ia
Well, I do differ in general on the view that Science - why it
worked - has been understood. I also differ on the idea that
philosophy - which is pre-scientific or non-scientific - can explain
science. The problem is that logically....just the act of doing
philosophy on science, pre-assumes that philosophy *can* explain
science. I mean....do you really think that if, as it turned out,
philosophy cahnnot explain science, that doing philosophy on science
would actually reveal that? no! the philosopher would find an
explanation.
So just doing philosophy on science pre-assumes the answer to the
question.
I can agree. I don't believe in "philosophy". Nor do I really believe
in "science". I believe in scientific attitude, and it has no relation
with the domaon involved. Some astrolog can be more scientific than
some astronomers.
The problem is that since theology has been excluded from academy,
"science" is presented very often as a pseudo-theology, with its God
(very often a primitive physical universe), etc.
There's two camps Bruno. One is that science was just an extension
of philosophy, among other things. Almost everyone is in this camp,
whether explicitly or by default.
Many believe that philosophy is an extension, sometimes without rigor,
of science.
The other camp is that something fundamental, and profound, happened
with science, that is extremely mysterious and unresolved.
With science and with "conscience", I can agree with that. In the comp
theory, it is the birth of the universal (Löbian) machine. The
singling out of the "[]", from the arithmetical reality.
Membership of either camp is an act of faith. I'm in the second
camp. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one.
I might feel to be more in "the second camp" myself, except that
precisely here, computationalism explains what happens, somehow.
You do look unhappy with something, apparently related to comp, or
to the UDA, or to AUDA?
Absolutely not. I've recently concluded my personal work on the
wider matter. It's been hugely valuable. Talking to you has been a
part of it.
Thanks for reassuring me.
I would like to give you something back...maybe I feel frustrated
that I can't get you to see what I am saying.
We might be closer than you thought, especially from above.
But never unhappy with you or your work. I'm very appreciative that
you talk to me at all. I'm not careful with what I say. I touch type
about 100wpm and rarely check what I said before posting. I'm sorry
if that is conveying an impression of not being happy. It isn't the
case I assure you. If I was unhappy, or I thought you were, I'd
leave you alone. You don't owe me anything...I'd consider it very
rude to put emotional shit onto you.
OK. No problem.
I just try sincerely to understand your point.
I know
OK. Keep in mind, that I am really a sort of simple minded scientist.
I understand only mathematical theories, and, when applied, I believe
to criterion of testability, or to the simplification they provide to
already tested theories.
?
Case is both mathematic standard, and theoretical computer science
standard.
These aren't the parts that matter. It's possible to use math in
philosophy. It's possible to do philosophy of computing. The part
that matters is the analysis of the philosophy and the nature of the
refutation.
I didn't write the refutation to be a proper standard of argument. I
wrote for you....because I thought you'd get it.
I would not classify this as philosophy (a word which has different
meaning from one university to another one).
John Case just show that for inference inductive machine, adding the
Popperian criterion, limit the classes of phenomena they are able to
inductively infer. It is a theorem in math, about digital machines.
Could you give me which few lines in the middle?
Not now...but I'll come back to you about it in the near
future...maybe in private if you allow it
I would prefer online, if you don't mind too much. By experience, when
I accept private talks on such subject, I end up explaining the same
thing to many people, and worst, I usually forget which people get the
explanations, and which don't. Thanks for understanding.
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/d/optout.
