On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:15 AM, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:55:03 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 7:22 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> 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 <yan...@gmail.com>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 >> > > I don't think you had a distinctive point did you? >
I thought I did: that an absolutist truth assignment to comp, or any complete notion of reality for that matter, principally escapes my understanding when it takes on these rhetorical forms with vague, if any, association to some frame of reference. Especially when its complex imbrication in form of personal attacks etc. obscures apparently a point or set of points you want to make. I know Richard is working from particular Calabi Yau manifolds on String level. But neither this nor comp (or any other foray into discourse on "ultimates") has some complete verification, or states some ultimate final approach in the depths of prediction, falsifiability and their funky relationship to explanatory force. You like Deutsch; I think he's cool with this, even advocating explanation over prediction, in one of the opening chapters of FOR, if I am not mistaken. Thus, you or Richard declaring "false" in the ways that I could parse in this thread, didn't convince me trivially for lack of reference. It's not clear what theory, theology, frame you are even arguing from; so how could one assess your statements, apparently comp related, when this or your position to Step 0 isn't clear? Screaming false + complex personal attacks is hardly convincing. PGC > You haven't read my side of things, you apparently disallow that something > like prediction/falsification is as important to me as your comp > envisionings are to you. Or to Bruno. You seem to visualize a sort of > pecking order perhaps, in which the value of Bruno's passion or yours, for > comp and infinite worlds and dreams and so on is embued with greater value, > than Science as I see it, proper, has deep resonance with me. You vomited a > number of allegations over me, when in fact I've made all the effort to > make my case and I've never blanket dismissed Bruno the way Bruno blanket > dismisses me. You're side taking PGC, in way that is totally unfair and > unexplained. I've done nothing to you. I strongly disagree with elements of > Bruno's theorizing, notably his claims to falsifiability which are NOT > true. We both feel strongly, and we both continue to choose to engage. It's > not your business. Only one person has dramatically attacked someone, and > that is you your attack on me. > > You'd be welcome to join the argument...you'd be welcome to account for > what YOU think falsification means, if you do know what it means. If > you had engaged with my position and through that come to a standing on the > value and/or motivation of my stance, that also would be acceptable to me. > *But jumping in, > discrediting me with malign motivation, accusing me failing to know or care > what Bruno's ideas are. And then coming back with the pompous > self-fascinated retort when I quite fairly and right call you for what you > are being - a nose that sniffs around other peoples turds thinking > they smell a lot worse than his own. You're an empty pair of trousers mate. > * > > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
