On 19 May 2014, at 01:10, [email protected] wrote:
I'm going to bullet point the key, hard-to-vary, components that may
or may not result in falsification. In doing so, I will be stating
not my personal preference, but the long standing convention. In
light of this faithfulness simply to what it actually is, I feel a
little aggrieved by the stream of unrelenting dismissiveness,
resorts to claims of unintelligibility on my part, allegations of
ill motivation, irrelevance and the rest of it.
So I will bullet point it here, very briefly. And if the same
individuals want to continue the way they are going, I shall suggest
they put their money where their mouths are, and lay cash wager
which one of us is correct, and we shall take our dispute to some of
the major and esteemed leading scientists of our time. And then we
shall see.
Falsification.
1. A precise, non-trivial prediction must be found in a theory, with
the following two key characteristics: It says something NEW about
the world, that goes over and above an Explanation of that which we
already know. Second, that it may be formulated with complete
separation and independence from the theory from which it spawns,
and stated entirely within the pre-existing realm of the incumbent
hard won knowledge already in place. This is the first layer of
separation. The theory from the prediction, the prediction in terms
of the incumbent theory of the world.
2. Second. The theorist has no SAY, more than any other person, in
how the prediction will be tested. The end to end process
encapsulating all components involved in the eventual lead up to an
observation event, is ENTIRELY outside the theory and the
argumentations of the theorist. This is the second layer of
separation,.
3. Third, an even higher level of separation must be met, between
the two strands of science, on the one side being the source of the
prediction and on the other the source of the observation. As such,
two distinctive paradigms of science are necessary. If one is theory
deriving, the other is technological. If one is human creative, the
other is empirical. If one field produces the prediction, another
field tests the prediction. Like Physics, and astronomy.
This is the multifolding degrees of separation that set us free from
our own delusions and dreams and imagings, that had dominated our
condition since the dawn of our and made us prisoners in palaces of
ignorance which no human had ever broken free of. It was only with
this, this extreme dedication to not believing a word of our own
sayings, and trusting to no-one that they could know let alone
control the huge assumptions we all would be sneaking through,
without even knowing it, where there not these multiple layers of
separation for the first time...maybe in the whole universe....set a
kind free and opened an age of objective discovery.
This matters. A lot. To everyone, all humans. It matters when
someone misconceives this fundamemental bedrock of science. It isn't
ok for people to make up their own meanings for falsification. It
isn't virtuous at all to write free passes. Because we could
actually this precious beautiful thing. And then all we would have
is what we had before. Dreams and delusions and priests and medicine
men, and nothing that ever took root and grew.
So I am passion for this. I love science. I am loyal to science. I'm
fine with comp and whatever else anyone wants to believe. But let's
remember and allow ourselves to be reminded what is fundamental to
the scientific revolution. If someone needs to relearn the nature
and distinctiveness of falsification, there's no shame in that. But
it isn't right to make our own versions up, and say its the same,
when it's stripped of the hard-to-vary fundamental character of
separation
Let's lay bets if that's what it'll take. If Bruno stands by his
claims to falsifiability and the definitions he has attached to
falsifiability. Let's go to it..we can go all the way. Let's see
what leading scientific minds of our day think it is.
You don't take the argument in the right way.
UDA shows that comp predicts a priori something new: white rabbits. In
fact UDA looks like a refutation of comp. Then AUDA shows that this
refutation is invalid, by showing that the machines refutes it in
showing that the comp physical propositions are quantized and obey a
quantum logic. Then if you look at the details, it predicts a quantum
logic (even 3, or even 5 in some sense), and each one makes slightly
different predictions, which might help to locate the origin of the
quantum law (is it in Z1 or in Z1*, or in S4Grz1, etc...).
The point is logical. IF comp is correct and if you accept the
classical definition of knowledge, etc. Then the laws of physics are
given by the measure that you can extracts from self-referential
logic. It is not obvious at all that the comp measure exists at all,
and so the discovery that the comp physics is quantized is a non
trivial discovery, and the first working (up to now) explanation of
where the laws of physics come from, where consciousness comes from,
etc.
Physicists just do not aboard the question and use an identity mind-
brain link which is shown inconsistent with comp.
Comp does this in a testable way, by providing theorem prover for the
propositional physics. S4Grz1 might gives the exact orthomodular
quantum logic of von Neumann, and Z1* with X1* are given some
variants, where the symmetry is broken above the atomic propositions.
I am still unsure of the significance of the facts that we get physics
on three horizontal in the 5 = 8 arithmetical hypostases. It looks
like heaven has its own quantum physics.
I am a logician. I just provides a proof that IF we survive the
digitalist yes-doctor move, then the laws of physics arise from
arithmetic in this precise way, and you can already test this (and
that has been tested, and thanks to both QM and Gödel, the test shows
that up to now, the comp white rabbits are eliminated in the same
manner than in the quantum physical reality. Good point for both comp
and the quantum. But only the simplest quantum tautologies have been
tested, for technical reason. So the next step, for the future
generations, when all this will be basic, will consists in optimizing
the theorem prover, and testing other tautologies. There must be
difference if comp is true, as the known quantum logic does not
provide the hamiltonian. In fact with comp, we get the correct (comp)
physics at once (QL + GR, if you want), and this is not yet done in
physics. To be sure, the test can show only that comp is false or that
we are in a genuinely fake second order simulation. But this does not
change the fact that comp predicts specific numbers. if we don't find
those numbers (until now we find the good one) it means comp is false,
or we are in a second order emulation: two astonishing facts. In all
case, comp refutes physicalism, and at the least illustrate a rational
and coherent view of reality and which prevents elimination of person,
consciousness, and any reductionism of what a Löbian entity can be.
Physicalism fails systematically on all this.
Bruno
--
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.
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.
