On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:53 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, [email protected] <javascript:> 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. > But that would quite rightly be regarded as a philosophical position Bruno. All we are doing is playing around with word definitions. You are saying that your philosophy of science is that it is....what you say above.
> > > > > > > > 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 level > That's a valid philosophical position. But for the nature of science to be fundamentally not philosophical there would have to be some fundament reason why, no? Because philosophy is just human being thinking about the nature of the world in a deep, methodical way. > > > > > > '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 > 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. > OK but if one of the results is that science is different in kind, there has to be a fundamental divide. What is it? > > I translate a problem in "philosophy" (the mind-body problem) into a > problem of arithmetic. That's all. > can you mention one characteristic of science that cannot, fundamentally cannot, be philosophical in its explanation? For this you *need* a limitatation of philosophy to refer to. -- 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.
