On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:31:53 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 May 2014, at 01:10, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> 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 > Hi Bruno, well ....at this point we're both well into an exchange. If I put a major effort into making a position clear and your response is "you don't get the point" then chances are...unless you're right and I have absolutely no point at all....unless that...chances are you aren't getting the point either. I don't see why things have to be like this. Could I just step ahead for a moment, and imagine a scenario that, say, it was correct that you should not claim falsifiability. This is nothing like as important as you might be thinking it is. I've seen you talk bout science and often make a bit centre piece about falsifiability. But I would personally look at things much more like Russell Standish in his reply above. There's actually nothing of particular value about falsifiability. It's much more a functional status...an actual real functional status of a body of work. If there is a directly falsifiable prediction...something that people other than the theorist can look at and understand without needing to know anything specialized to the theory or theorist. Then the process has begun, this being the first step of the end-to-end structure defining "falsifiability". This is when people would rightly be going around saying, well "my theory is falsifiable". Because pending any new science or technology necessary first, the theory indeed is, and in due course will be, or not,. But there are other stages no less important. In my view you have defined some interesting hypotheses for new arrangements of testing and verification. I really think you should hive these ideas off, and take them seriously. It'd be an amazing contribution if a set of standards came out eventually that managed to decouple science from empirical measurement, for example, but in a way that in no way undermined all the separations and rigour of science. I mean, it's got to be done by someone. Because we can't see beyond the light cone, or back before the beginning, or underneath or over the hood. We're at the edge man, so a new kind of structure is going to have to be found by someone. All I feel strongly about is that we value and appreciate what conventional historical 'falsification' actually was, and don't devalue or obscure it, Because it's given us everything. And within it...study of its structure...there are possible the seeds of insight that could be key for whoever will discover the next way forward.
> > > > > > > > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > 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 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.
