Hibbs, I do not often share your opinion, but in this instance I do. It seems to me that Bruno's principal argument for comp is that it predicts MWI. Yet MWI itself is not falsifiable or testable.
And I think MWI fails the measure problem despite the Gleason Theorem. I think it is a mistake for Bruno to connect comp to MWI. Comp like string theory is so rich in results that I suggest that it could as well predict a single world. However, I do appreciate Bruno's intellect and humility, a rare combination. Richard On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:48:26 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 May 2014, at 22:44, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:31:17 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 14 May 2014, at 03:29, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating >>>>> one part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is "real". >>>>> >>>>> If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare with >>>>> nature. >>>>> >>>>> When we compare with nature we find that some things exist and some >>>>> don't. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Like other worlds don't exist, or atoms don't exist ... the question >>>> about what exists hasn't been answered yet. Or indeed the question about >>>> what it means for something to exist. >>>> >>>> So is it your view that no matter what comp predicts it's not >>>> falsified because it may be true somewhere else? >>>> >>> >>> I find it hard to read that into what I wrote. (Unless "no matter what >>> comp predicts" is a slightly awkward, but potentially rather funny, pun?) >>> >>> But anyway, no that isn't my view. Either comp is true or it isn't, >>> which is to say, either consciousness is Turing emulable at some level, or >>> it isn't. And if it is, either there is some flaw in what Bruno derives >>> from that assumption, or there isn't. >>> >>> >>> But the question is about how to test comp. Bruno has offered that we >>> should compare its predictions to observed physics. My view is that this >>> requires predictions about what happens here and now, where some things >>> happen and some don't. "Predictions" that something happens somewhere in >>> the multiverse don't satisfy my idea of testable. >>> >>> >>> >>> But comp do prediction right now. At first sight it predicts white noise >>> and white rabbits, but then we listen to the machines views on this, and >>> the simplest pass from provability to probability (the local erasing of the >>> cul-de-sac worlds) gives a quantization of the arithmetical sigma_1 >>> proposition. A good chance that arithmetic provided some quantum erazing, >>> or destructive interference in the observations. >>> >>> To me, Gleason theorem somehow solve the measure problem for the quantum >>> theory, but we have only some promise that it will be so for comp, as it >>> needs to if comp is true. >>> >>> My point is that if you say yes to the doctor, and believe in peano >>> Arithmetic, that concerns you. >>> >>> It is a problem. We have to find the equivalent of Gleason theorem in >>> arithmetic, for the arithmetical quantum logics. >>> >>> I submit a problem, and I provided a testable part. The quantum >>> propositional tautologies. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >> >> So it looks like it isn't just me that doesn't understand your story of >> testability. >> >> So may I do a little test here. Can anyone here, other than Bruno, >> explain this paragraph in terms of realizable falsiibility and attest to >> that? >> >> >> >> >> >> *"By looking to our neighborhood close enough to see if the physics >> match well a sum on infinities of computations. If comp is true, we will >> learn nothing, and can't conclude that comp has been proved, but if there >> is a difference, then we can know that comp is refuted (well, comp + the >> classical theory of knowledge)." * >> >> How does the end part "well, comp + the classical theory of >> knowledge" change the commitment to falsification? >> >> >> Good question. I let other answer, but frankly, it is just a matter of >> *studying* the papers. Note that in some presentation, I take the >> classical theory (or definition) of knowledge granted, but in other >> presentation, I explain and answer your question with some detail, and it >> is the object of the thesis. >> >> More on this, and you can ask the question to me. The point is in focus, >> not the success of my pedagogy on this list. >> >> Bruno >> > > I think you're confused where your theory ends and scientific standards, > conventions, definitions begin. The arguments and explanations you lay out > in your theory, may certainly arrive at various conclusions for the > implications comp has for the world. And I'm quite sure within that you > offer your explanation for the falsifiability of comp. > > But you're getting ahead of yourself dramatically Bruno, if you think the > details of your argument is an influential factor in settling the matter of > falsifiability. What you profess within your theory is > irrelevant...on this encapsulating turf. > > In fact from memory you've made about 4 arguments at various times. In at > least one of your papers you offer this...little package of > philosophical reasoning, which 5 lines and 30 seconds > later concludes your work is falsifiable so scientific. I mentioned at the > time the same argument can be formulated for all philosophy...and probably > religion and everything else. Then you insisted your theory is falsifiable > because its fundamental position requires huge accomplishments, like > deriving physics. > > So I mentioned the same argument is applicable to any and all ToE, by > definition. Which is obviously true...but you reacted angrily, apparently > denying you ever constructed such an argument. It would be very easy to > guide you to where you said it...repeatedly...and to my protests. Just as > it would have been easy to demonstrate multiple occasions on which you > claimed computations are intrinsically conscious, and the other events too. > The reason I haven't is intellectual respect and a wish to accept any > clarification or edit as the right version if you say it is. > > I've gone out of my way to do this...but the plain data accumulated now > Bruno, is that you're confused what the meaning of falsifiability actually > is. Your angry rebuff concluded in making me responsible for 'not getting > it'....before yet another 'clarification' that your theory simply leaves > 'no choice'...and it's this property of contraining to block all paths but > the one, that delivers the scientific standard. > > But you've moved past that in the few posts since, and now the reason your > theory is falsifiable is because we can look to the local physicals, and > compare that with taking a summation of an infinite multiverse of possible > computations. Apparently, if there is a 'difference' comp is falsified. > Well...not quite....comp + classical natural law is falsified. > > There is nothing - no part - of this formulation...or any of the other > more careful attempts that I have seen, that even begins to exhibit the > properties of testability. But what's really telling is that you describe a > sort of, process....a sequence of steps.....apparently with a falsification > as one possible outcome. > > So...you define falsifiability as a process....a process within the > arguments of your theory. Each step of the process, your theory has not > even begun to approach actually resolving...or even the basic thinking of > what such a resolution would look like. A summation of an infinity of > multiverses of all possible computations? And who or what decides when the > infinite set is all accounted for? Could it be we'll have to rely on the > arguments within your theory for that? Could it also be your theory > currently has no better insight of what it even means than I do...not that > can be independently verified or tested. > > So let's recap Bruno...your theory will one day tell us what the summation > of infinities comes to....and presumably also the correct formulation of > the 'local neighbourhood' for a 1:1 comparison. So your theory will - > oneday - perform this calculation.....and so your theory will assess the > results....and then your theory will announce whether it is falsified or > not. > > You can surely see that this is a self-referring mess. And do you know why > it's like this? It's because you are trying to define falsifiability within > your theory and tell the world a new definition based on a process of > far-future sequenced events. > > Oh sure, I'm the only one that seems to care about this here in this > little goldfish bowl. People here....they like you....they enjoy your > theory.......appreciate what they perceive as your patience and willingness > to engage any person. Listen....I like many of your qualities too. My > intuition with the fullness of time, is that you've seriously wasted my > time by engaging with me about the items important to me.....it's very > clear at no time have you been willing to re-evaluate your envisionings of > falsification, and confront the very obvious serious questions. > > So you've wasted my time.......and fooled yourself the fact no one else > here in this tiny group feels any need to haul you over for any claims you > make.....and largely don't really care that much about the old fashioned > falsifiability thing......all rather passé in the infinite infinities of > infinities of everything infinitely explained. Sorry...below the belt...no > grievance and so on. So anyway, they let you get away with murder Bruno, > and you fool yourself this is reflects the norm. My questions and concerns > are the norm mate. > > I know you'll be coming back saying you don't know what I'm talking about, > and you'll restate your theory is testable...and you'll get away with it > because no one holds you to account for things like this. But the lone > position from me....and as it happens the vast majority of serious > scientists I should think, is that you don't begin to understand the nature > and distinctiveness of falsifiability, so I'll leave you with a refresher: > > 1) A precise, non-trivial prediction is fundamental, that tells us > something NEW about physical law....that is to say, goes over and above > offering some new *explanation* of exactly what we already know. This is > the fundamental substance of testability, and falsifiability. > > This Bruno, you never accomplish. You never produce a single non-trivial > prediction from all your work. It does not count to say, you predict your > theory will do great things...it does not count to then argue that if it > doesn't do those great things that would be a falsification. It does not > add any value at all to exchange a prediction for a process of far future > steps. The theorist has no say how his prediction is tested...he's as > welcome as the next person to make a helpful suggestion.....but the whole > end to end process of testing/observing, is complete outside the theory and > the whimsical arguments of the theorist. And this separation is > fundamental. This is what it's all about. > > So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in the > scientific sense. No one calls you on this.....here.....but then > again.....let's face it no one answered my question either. But other > there....all you'll accomplish with this hubris is to be ignored and > written off. Which you probably are, by and large. And...I wanted to add > value for you....for my part I would actually question the way your friends > write you a pass about this, because this is one tiny goldfish bowl dude. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
