On 06 May 2014, at 20:22, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2014, at 18:08, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:59:12 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:32:38 PM UTC+1, John Ross wrote:
All 101 of my "predictions" are predictions. I looked up
"prediction". It means: "Something foretold or predicted". Many
predictions turn out to be false.
I think the issue is, "How many of my predictions will sooner or
later be recognized by the scientific community as true and how
many will be recognized as false". For some of my predictions, we
may never know for sure whether they are true or false. I believe
there is a significant probability that they are all correct. If
any of them are proven incorrect, I will eliminate the incorrect
predictions or correct them. So far no one has proven to me that
any of my predictions are wrong. For those "predictions" that
cannot ever be proven right or wrong, the question would be whether
my prediction is more likely to be correct than other explanations
dealing with the same issue.
I predict that tronnies are the source of the Coulomb force. And
that each tronnie has a charge of plus e or minus e. And that the
electron is comprised of two minus tronnies and one plus tronnie
and that the positron is comprised of two plus tronnies and one
minus tronniie. I also say that entrons are comprised of one plus
tronnie and one minus tronnie and that there is one entron in each
photon. These are all predictions that most knowable people would
disagree with.
However we know that a 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon is required to
produce an electron and a positron and that electron - positron
annihilation processes creates two lower energy gamma ray photons.
This is pretty good evidence that electrons, positrons and photons
are made from the same things. Those things are tronnies.
I explain that there are two additional photons (that scientists
are not aware of) involved in the pair production process and that
one additional photon (also undetected) is involved in the
annihilation process.
The question is: "Am I right?"
About the prediction matter you are right in the sense you
describe. In that sense a theory is, itself, a prediction. While
also many predictions, for each distinctive step of its
construction. The sentence I just wrote is also a prediction, and
so is this one.
This one, however, is not a prediction. This is the falsification
of the sentence, because it said it wasn't, but anything that
asserts, predicts.
Not taking the mick John - I can see you've done a serious piece of
work.
The serious point here is, a 'scientific prediction' is a special
case of the generic 'prediction'.
There are contexts in which your predictions would be scientific
predictions. If for example, your theory was that all things
correspond to the fractal z=exp(1/z) or whatever...and from that
you derive the tronnie and its properties, maybe.
But anyway...regardless of that......a biggie here is the two slit
experiment....so would it be ok for you to explain your take on
that, based on the tronnie?
by the way, you wouldn't be the only one to be unclear what a
prediction is supposed to be. No one much understands it these
days. The guy with the major theory on this list, Bruno, thinks his
ToE is falsifiable on the basis as a ToE it has to describe the
forces of nature and everything else, and if that doesn't happen at
some point in the future then his theory is falsified.
You seem to have clearly missed the point Gibbsa. UDA just leaves no
choice (except reifying matter with a magic ability to select a
computation).
UDA explains why we have to translate the mind-body problem into the
problem of deriving physics from arithmetic, and AUDA makes the
translation constructive, indeed we can already test the logic
obeyed by the observable.
Which makes all ToE's by definition falsifiable of course
That follows from what you said, indeed. But what you said has no
relationship with what I explain.
I just show that if the brain is turing emulable at a level such
that consciousness is preserved (something believed implicitly or
explicitly by most current scientists), then physics (and actually
something bigger than physics) is reduced constructively into the
study of a variety of self-referential fixed points. I solved the
propositional case.
With comp, the notion of primitive matter becomes a "god-of-the-
gap". It explains nothing, and worst, it is an obstacle to the
understanding.
I am not proposing anything new. I just show that adding mechanism
and materialism gives something epistemologically inconsistent.
Now, you can choose your favorite poison.
The theory is falsifiable, but not as a base of a TOE. That's
exactly what UDA explains. You should tell me if you have a problem
and at which step.
Bruno
If I got you wrong, I won't hesitate to acknowledge that.
Good. I think you did get it wrong.
You have said several times, though, that your theory is falsifiable
based on what it will do, or not do, in the future?
Only when I answer Brent, and confess that comp does not yet predict
something new. But comp already predicts many non trivial things,
qualitatively and quantitatively. In fact it is hard to imagine a more
easily refutable theory, because it gives the whole of physics.
If not, please clarify, because it'll definitely dramatically shift
the situation if it turns out your theory has made *predictions*
that are falsifiable by *observations*. The word 'observation' meant
very flexibly within reason.
Comp give the equation. It gives something like physics = x such that
F(x) = 0. It explains how to solve the equation, and why the equation
has only one solution. Then it is only my incompetence in mathematics,
or the current incompetence of mathematicians (or they non interest in
the question for one or another reason) which prevent classical comp
to be refuted and improved. What has been predicted so far is
conformed by facts and known theories (QM).
I comment your sequel here:
You seem to have clearly missed the point Gibbsa. UDA just leaves no
choice (except reifying matter with a magic ability to select a
computation).
I didn't miss this, I answered it Bruno. It's not falsiability. This
is the sort of argument religions come up with.
I don't understand at all that remark. You have to study the papers,
or the posts I sent where I explain more. It is hard science, and
nothing should be taken with faith, not even comp of course.
UDA shows that physics is entirely given by a relative probability or
uncertainty measure on computation/sigma_1 sentences, seen from the
machines first person point of view. What I will call classical comp,
is just comp + the classical theory of knowledge. And this, thanks to
computer science, provides the equation given physics. The
propositional physics (the logic of the observable) are given
constructively. You can download the theorem prover, and you can
compare with the quantum logics. The problems which remains are
technical, like how to improve those theorem prover to get interesting
quantum facts. But we already have a sort of quantum (orthomodular)
logic. It must be a logic searched by von Neuman, which characterizes
univoquely the measure on the comp propositions.
For it to be genuine that no choice is left, every possible
unhandled assumption has to be squeezed out. Not just in what you
do, but your starting position and everything about that. But you
acknowledge, you don't do any work on the starting position. It's
church thesis.
You don't need to justify the axioms of a theory to make it
falsifiable. You derive the facts from the theory, and you compare
with the facts that you observe. Incidentally, Church thesis is used
to justify the generality of the digital mechanist thesis, but you can
easily drop it, and define comp by mentioning a particular universal
system. All know universal system are provably equivalent.
But...you do acknowledge that, and you do say your work is based on
that...saying yes to the doctor.
Yes, that is comp. The idea that a brain is a machine. It is an old
theory, used by most rationalists today.
This isn't the same situation as leaving no choice. Science wouldn't
just rely on something being correct, that wasn't itself hard
science. Unless there were going to be hard predictions. Hard
predictions sweep everything else away.
The hard prediction is that the logic obeyed by nature is a very
precise type of quantum logic, formalized by Z1* and X1*. If physics
was Newtonian or Laplacean, classical comp would be refuted. Comp
predicts already the violation of Bell's inequality, the symmetry and
linearity of the core physical equations, the many worlds appearance
below some level of description, the weakening of the a posteriori
boolean axioms, etc. (+ technical nuances out of the scope of this
little summary).
It explains what no theory in physics explains today, which is why
some part of physics are sharable (like the quanta), and why some
parts are not sharable (like the qualia).
I have always predicted that classical comp would be refuted, just
because it would astonishing the simplest translation of UDA in
arithmetic provides the correct TOE, but apparently, up to now,
everything known in nature confirms the already given comp prediction.
But you do not ever make a hard prediction Bruno.
I have no clue why you say that. It is the object of the whole work.
You seem to misunderstand something in the UDA.
And you say falsifiability - in the past - is based what your theory
will do in the future if it is correct. And I have said endlessly
that this is not falsifiability.
I keep insisting that I have no original theory. It is
computationalism: the doctrine that brain and bodies are machines, in
the modern digital sense.
I don't even understand your sentence. I have never talk of
falsifiability in the past or future. i derive a precise mathematical
theology, which include the whole physics, from the comp assumption. I
cannot imagine more falsifiable than that. Please study the papers ,
and ask me question when you don't understand, as I am rather
explicit, and I have no clue what you are missing. Are you OK with the
first seven steps of UDA? Have you any problem with the FPI (First
Person Indeterminacy), that is step 3?
Given that the results are explicitly stated, it is enough to read the
proof and tell me where you fail to understand something.
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.
