falsification is a susceptible to circularity, since the data must be interpreted ever under a theory. that theory is the one that we want to test. So a nascent science can be circular at the first stages and then can grow to predict a fact , previously unknown that demonstrates that another is wrong. Or in the contrary it can remain circular forever.
Other successful theories can develop a methodology so elaborate that can claim reductionist appropriation of the rest of the disciplines, arguing that, because these other disciplines have not yet a clear falsification methodology, all that they say is mambo-jambo. Yet another ones, feeling envy of the previous ones, can adopt inappropriately the metodology of the more elaborated and precise ones. For example, in zoology, by measuring the heigh and standard deviation of the gorllas. And claiming that zoology has at last applied the falsifiable method of hard sciences. So it is a true science. When in reality they have reduced zoology , or pshychology, or sociology to irrelevance. Yet another schools will react against this reaction and claim that their discipline has his own level of irreductible reality with no possible explanation at a lower lever for any aspect whatsoever, and claim that all that reductionism is imperialism and fascism. And that even if it is not falsifiable, the defense of the gays or the negro or the Amazonas, or the global change or whatever is also scence and I deserve a seat in the university or , if you date to oppose, you are a fascist. But we do not know when a enquiry will be fruitful, will overcome his circularity and will become "predictive" in the falsifiable sense. We do not know if this discipline has been victim of fashionable reductionism or simply we don´t know, may be .. The more interesting disciplines for me, are the ones that study facts and make predictions at long term and very long term. The more relevant a discipline is for human life, the less is possible to isolate it in a laboratory. That is the tragedy of reductionism. We have unlearned tons of knowledge thanks to the scientific reductionism. the worship of science and all these methodological reverence So any kind of enguiry goes, including the "un-scientific", "oscurantists" "moronic" and other kinds of disciplines that have no fancy insults against the holy priest of science that may question them, have no subsidies and have no politics and no influential minorities behind to defend themselves. 2014-05-19 21:54 GMT+02:00, [email protected] <[email protected]>: > > On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:09:15 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 May 2014, at 16:46, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:31:53 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> Hi Bruno, well ....at this point we're both well into an exchange. >> >> >> >> We agree on that. >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> I propose a checkable reasoning, showing that a theological point is >> testable albeit in a sort of indirect way. >> > > I've no reason - or skills - to think otherwise. I really want re-emphasize > > what I've said many times but would acknowledge much less more recently > and not for what is probably too long, that I have never questioned the > quality of your logic, your reasoning, your scientific training, your > commitment to science. I have never stepped onto turf like this....largely > because although it isn't true that I haven't given considerable time to > your ideas and to you, it's true all the same I simply don't have the > skills, knowledge and competencies to be making judgement calls like that. > > There has been two themes between us. One I apparently never succeeded in > making myself comprehensible to you about.....,that was the problem of > UNREALIZED assumptions. > > The other is contained entirely within two components, one - yours - that > your work is falsifiable in the scientific sense; the other - mine - being > that no it ain't. > > One might draw a parallel between me saying that, and me inflicting an > attempted major slight on all those qualities I just said I've no ability > to say about. But that isn't so, for two reasons. The matter of > falsification is OUTSIDE yours or anyone's theory. In the scientific sense. > > So I don't need to be competent in your theory. I only need to see an > actual, non-trivial prediction that other people on the other side of the > world have picked up and are actively at whatever stage of trying to test. > Because that prediction isn't allowed to be decided by the new > distinctiveness of your own theory...not in the scientific sense. > > This isn't even something that needs a reference for. It's just an > effective reality for all practical purposes. Almost every component, every > > datum in your linked reasoning within your theory effectively makes a > prediction about something else within your theory. So it's replete with > abundant pairs of falsifiable predictions followed by avid confirmation. > Not for everyone;'s theory mind you....because internal inconsistencies and > > oversights are little falsifications aren't they. But I really do accept > and believe in the hard work and logical commitment you have given to your > work. > > But in terms of falsifiability it's simply neither here nor there. > >> >> I know what I have done, and it is has been peer reviewed by hundred of >> people. It is far more modest than what you might perhaps imagine, >> although >> it is might look radical, in case you believe religiously in Aristotle >> primary matter *and* in mechanism. >> >> I don't think you can really judged the testability criteria, if you don't >> >> study the proofs. UDA explains why, and AUDA explains how. >> >> It seems to me that you want maintain the debate at some meta-level, >> instead of focusing on the work itself. >> >> Your way of talking might give the feeling to a casual reader that there >> is something wrong with what I say, or that I am suggesting a >> revolutionary >> theory. UDA for me as only a relind that science has not solved the mind >> body problem, and then, thanks to Gödel, Löb, etc., I have the tools to >> interview the machine ("literally") on this, and get the propositional >> logic of the observable. >> My thesis is in computer science, mathematical logic, cognitive science, >> platonist machine theology, etc. >> >> >> >> Could I just step ahead for a moment, >> >> >> I think you were already ahead, but OK, let us see. >> >> >> and imagine a scenario that, say, it was correct that you should not claim >> >> falsifiability. >> >> >> That is so distracting. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> Not at all. John Case and some student of him have refuted the >> falsifiability criteria, showing in the Popperian way that its was (and >> still is) interesting. But for inductive inference machines, it limits >> their learnability prowess. >> >> I have my own philosophy, but it is private, if only because if I make it >> >> public, people will believe I use it in the math, which is not the case. >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> That's another debate. As a mathematician, I will not put 0+x = x, despite >> >> in some philosophy that is not refutable/falsifiable. >> But scientific statement about the physical reality have to be testable >> and should be comparable with result of observation, or general principle >> >> linking those observations. >> >> >> >> >> It's much more a functional status...an actual real functional status of a >> >> body of work. If there is a directly falsifiable prediction... >> >> >> My first theory used only []p for both the knower and physics, separated >> by the sigma_1 restriction, and G/G*. Well, I compared to quantum logic, >> or >> even more general probability logic or credibility logic, and it failed. >> But more reflexion made me realize that incompleteness introduce more >> nuances, and indeed on those one, we get the quantization needed to have a >> >> measure one of credibility. >> >> >> >> something that people other than the theorist can look at and understand >> without needing to know anything specialized to the theory or theorist. >> >> >> >> Sure. It happens that it is less easy than it seems. But all the tools are >> >> there. Just enumerate the comp physical propositional formula and the >> quantum propositional formula. Up to what I have been able to verify, it >> fits. >> >> We "discover" physics from inside the mind of the machine, which is a >> tradition interrupted since 1500 years, and I do that since about >> yesterday. >> >> And we discover physics in the reverse order than the physicists. The MW >> is almost the obvious start, given that all computations exists in >> elementary arithmetic, then we get the quantum tautologies, the symmetry >> of >> the bottom, i hope for the linearity, that is QM, and the classical part >> >> of the physical experience, the Hamiltonian, is what is the harder to >> derive, and may be it is geographical. open problem. It looks we do need a >> >> universal group, and that is on the horizon of the material hypostases >> (the >> arithmetical []p & (& <>t) on p sigma_1, seen at the G* level). >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> But that is called theoretical science. Now the computationalist >> hypothesis has this nice property: it relates fundamental question >> (including the origin of the physical laws and of consciousness) with >> problems of computer science. Which has many aspect testable by math alone >> >> (which I have done), and some aspect can be tested with nature (the logic >> >> of the observable). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> I think it has been found. It is the universal machines/numbers. It >> changes the whole picture, and makes sense of the coming bak to Plato, >> where physics is not the reality but the border of some other reality. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> Why not focus of something which has been done. >> >> It is hard for me to see your point, except as being vaguely negative, and >> >> speculative about the non falsifiability, instead of learning the details, >> >> and the sense in which it is falsifiable, indeed. >> >> Now it is technical work, peer reviewed and having gone through all the >> academic tests, so I find unfair to rise doubt on this without you ever >> focusing on the points, where I can imagine a possible systematic error >> unseen till now, or whatever. >> >> My work is, by definition, a deduction, that you get, or don't get, and if >> >> that is the case, you can ask a question. For example John Clark has a >> problem with step 3, which I think is not a problem for many others, but >> at >> least he says where he halts. Where do you halt? I don't understand what >> you seem to not understand or be blasé about? >> >> If backtracking 1500 years of theology was not moving forward enough ! :) >> >> That 's what the machines already tell us, in some precise sense, and you >> >> better should listen now, because the singularity is soon, and machines >> will soon only repeat the media and the authoritative arguments, and >> become >> as stupid as us. Fight for the net neutrality, before the Löbian machines >> >> are sent to the gulags. >> >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]<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 [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. > -- Alberto. -- 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.
