On 22 May 2014, at 14:15, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:06:52 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 21:50, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:20:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 15:28, [email protected] wrote:
But now that you tell us that you believe that comp is false, I am
not so astonished. You still miss a real opportunity to refute
comp, at the same time.
No. I don't have to say comp is false. I'm saying that the
assumption is not carrying much knowledge. It would be like in 1700
someone proposing the universe was made of the same matter. It'd be
true, we know that now. So small and large theories came out that
started with that assumption alone, and came up with streams of
logic...leading to dreams and gods and whatever. And there'd be
guys in your role and guys in my role, and in my role they'd be
saying "I don't think it's wrong, I just think the initial
assumption is not carrying much knowledge. And the guy in your role
would be saying "ah...so you do assume not-matter"
But if you believe this, then you have to believe that something is
wrong in the UD Argument, as it shows that comp is a very strong
hypothesis, leading to the reversal physics/machine's psychology, or
machine's theology. What step is wrong? Are you OK with step 3
(where John Clark miss the use of the 1p/3p distinction if you have
follow the thread), or is it step 8?
Why Bruno? I'm talking about your seed assumption.
You think you have a refutation of comp? Like Craig? I have not seen it.
How about do the other way around.
Because what I present has been submitted, defend as a thesis,
published, and it seems you have a philosophical opinion that comp is
false, but you have not present. I look at your posts and don't find it.
Read my post on the 'end to end structure associated wit (sic)
falsification' , tell me where you disagree, or....present your
falsifiability carefully in those terms.
I see only meta-remarks. Can you at least confirm that you pretend to
have a refutation of comp. You are quite unclear.
Because there's two areas here. One is issue about your initial
assumption.
Well, it is no mine. It is a very old assumption, made clear in the
digital frame by Church thesis.
We spent ages on that, in which I was trying to put the case for
UNREALIZED assumptions. Drew a blank there.
What do you mean by unrealized assumption? Do you mean an implicit
assumption? Which one?
Then there's matter of your claim to falsifiability. On that one
I've actually thrown down the gauntlet. The challenge is that you
actually present your falsifiability in the terms I laid out.
Why? For scientists it is enough to be falsifiable in the common sense
of the term. I offer an infinity of ways to refute comp (classical
comp). I am not sure they are not in the terms you lay down.
Even with only UDA, you can understand that the comp physics is
falsifiable. AUDA shows that the actual quantum physics does not yet
refute it (although comp already refutes newton physics, etc.).
Or, you disagree with those terms in which case we can start looking
for third party resolution of who is right.
It is just I have no clue how you can both say you have not the skill
to understand AUDA, and claim you have refute the statement that comp
is refutable. This is already a contradiction. I doubt we can proceed
if you don't invest a bit more in the technicalities.
Let me ask you this. Do you agree that quantum logic is falsifiable?
Putnam did go so far on this that he suggests that logic is empirical,
and I would say that quantum logic is like that. Without inferring QM
from observation, we would not have discovered QL before comp. If you
agree that quantum logic is empirical, then we are done, as the test
for classical comp consists in comparing the QL extracted from comp,
and the QL inferred from the observation. OK?
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.
