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 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/
