On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 7:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 18, 2014 2:57:02 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> You do? >> >> Then why participate in this tedious, repetitive carousel of personal >> attacks (pointing to flaws without precision, just hand waving that there >> is one and/or attacking Bruno on personal level) of everybody who hasn't >> red the original thesis, the literature they are based on, and the papers >> that build, clarify, or expand on the consequences; while pretending to >> presuppose their content and invalidating them disingenuously? >> >> Everybody here should know by now that these "attacks" don't lead >> anywhere because off topic by nature and that comp makes your head spin in >> disbelief at first recognizing possibilities and implications. That's not >> an argument and neither are personal judgements and attacks of this sort. >> The real time wasters. PGC >> > > > > Quite a spew for someone that didn't look closely to in the first place > make a say. There's no profile of malice....I've only ever had one major > criticism of Bruno's theorizing, and I've tried hard to say it well enough > for him that he can move past this. > > It is totally independent of theory - his or anyone's. It's about > falsification that's all. He understands this wrongly...he conceives of it > thing with many variant .....,,.but this the bedrock of science, it's an > hard to vary thing. > > I understand you....you status-sniff so twill not have read any of my > descriptions. Had you of, you'd not entertain poor motivation this keenly, > because endless tries to say it better, a single - just one - major > criticism, is not the profile for that. > > Why not you have a go at my post previous to this, in which despite his > allegation of vaguery, I go a few steps further than anyone else I'm aware > of around here, to make more explicit the end to end structure of > falsifiability as it is, in Science. I say. > > How about you give me that say, and suffer reading the points, and should > you find disagreement, let me know. If possible also be less of a > turd-sniffer PGC. There's a of formula. >
Thank you for proving my point by making matters clear. PGC > -- > 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.
