2014-05-07 11:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > > 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. >
I have to agree with ghibbsa... your actual prediction are vague, there isn't any numerical hard predictions that we could do an experiment and compare and refute or not... And even if you would give any, you can always ascribe the non-corresponding result to geography... I asked you several time what in comp is not "geography" ? As comp entails all and every simulations (as precise as we can imagine them to be), it contains all numericable value for any observable... so it must be geography... so what *hard* prediction does comp make that can falsify it here and now ? I really mean hard prediction, not some vague retrodiction of current theories. Regards, Quentin > > > > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
