On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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).
How many different methodologies are used in the course of producing
all those definitions?
If science is fundamentally different in 'kind' then the differences
in method only count at the core.
?
On the contrary, science is not different in kind of philosophy, or
gardening or whatever. Science is only a question of attitude, which,
beyond curiosity and some taste for astonishment, is an attitude of
doubt, and attempt to be clear enough for colleagues.
So if that's your hunch the question becomes..are there any
definitions not derived from creative analysis? Are there any that
define how the different definitions should be analysed, compared,
and the superior model selected
Which - not Unhappy with you about it - but I'm frequently on
record that it's easy to make as much as you want "Science" if you
define science philosophically.
I do science. I don't define science, except in some abstract way, in
the frame of the study of the self-referentially correct machines,
when the machine proves propositions about itself. But this is
"science" in a way similar that the sun is a material point having the
right mass. But you must not confuse the two levels.
'v
But all that's about is lowering the standard to philosophy or
theology or whatever. accomplished the some thing as Deutsch.
On the contrary, computationalism invites the use of computer science
and mathematical logic for making higher the level of rigor, and
clarifying a lot very difficult points. I might think that all errors
in philosophy and theology are confusion between some of the 8
hypostases.
I translate a problem in "philosophy" (the mind-body problem) into a
problem of arithmetic. That's all.
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.
