On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:13:38 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LizR <[email protected]> > > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm > > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? > > > > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List & > lt;[email protected] > > > wrote: > > So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in > > the scientific sense. > > > Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is > wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its > logic of the observable) and its actual testing? > > > Because you don't have one. > > > > But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional > physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis. > > So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean logic, > like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism. > > And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using the > quantum facts to argue against mechanism. > > The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and > infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex. > > If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the > field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the > possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of the > computations going through our states (computational states), and so that > logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal machine. > Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) > beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc. > > > > > > > Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work? > > > > Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the physics > of the machines. > > Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics that I > do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics collapse into > boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been refuted, or show > trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether, at least as a physical > laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM would only describe a > subpart of it. > > Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or > retrodicts that the observable > have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic. It > predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a symmetry > conditions. > > It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it, but > that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to solve to > progress. You just need to understand the technics. It is had, and I have > done the best I could. A student and friend of mine, the late Eric > Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems. > > And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics, > which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process. My interest is > in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul. > > > > > > > If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one. But > does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory. > > > > They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck (or bad > luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is exactly the > quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that. > And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin of > the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where UDA and > machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find quantum logic. > > If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL, > well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp. > > Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more axioms, > and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new theorems and new > physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is not just the classical > knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have axioms inherited from the > Löb formula, from which we get information not available. In their first > order arithmetical extensions, there is an infinities of such information. > > > Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.....I've no > access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a > 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and private. Like > fight club geezer...that silly film: what happens on everything list, stays > on everything list. My blood my pledge! Seriously....I'm always aware > arguing with you in this long running way, of your experiences you shared > about psycho stalkers and such like. Well that ain't me geezer :o) I come > from the harder fraternity of, in the morning "forgive 'em...or kill 'em". > Just kidding obviously, but even if I wasn't...there's definitely > nothing...nothing...that anyone can say or do on a list that wouldn't > qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.....I don't know about you but I agree > with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it > looks.....which speaking of killing people.....you'd have to kill someone > here to get a ban from Russell, so it looks. > Always a risk with you...your French.....you'll not take something the > right way. Do me a favour and get Kim to translate for you if you've any > concerns :O) > > No but....I believe in what I believe, and I'm only interested in you > because of the things that I think make us similar or see things the same > way. I might never mention them, and only what I don't agree...but that's > how it works for my little brain to learn. Very long winded and slow but > it's the only way I have. I think you're right about a lot of things. I > think you're wrong about the falsification thing, but I'm just going to > file that now where I filed the cannabis issue. We've been through it. Time > for bed now that one. > > > But you don't comment any of my answers. The falsification issue is > factual. You might criticize the translation of the UDA in arithmetic, but > you can't deny that I gave a a clear way to test the final TOE > > > I haven't denied or openly doubted you see a test in the future. > But...most things predict things in one sense or another. Where we disagree > is on whether 'falsifiability' is open to variants such that, if someone > can formulate a form of words involving some sort of test in the faR say > they see a clear future way to test their theory, or a conviction of a > clear way to test a final toe. > > This is all an earlier stage than falsifiability. >
I sent that by accident. I was going to add that I haven't been commenting on answers you make that basically ignore what I explained falsification actually was, and why I thought it was like that. It doesn't seem worthwhile addressing your answer if all I'm going to be doing is explaining, again, what falsification is, and why what you are talking about is a hoped for future test. Which just about every theory in the world can hope for as well. and all you're going to reply with, is ignoring what I said...not addressing what your 'falsification' seems actually to imply. That science happens easily...that basically it's no different than philosophy, or not that I can see based on your 'prediction'. I think I've done most of the work up to now. I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me to engage your answers if they don't engage my question. Your test ideas are also very vague, they aren't well thougtt through, no one understands them well enough to endorse what your claiming that I have seen. Some of them are just daft Bruno..like anyo wrne that tests phys s is testing your theory. That's exactly the sort of silly talk that really condemns you on this matter. finally, there's obvious wriggle room everywhere, if you ever did construct an actual test. Based on what I know of you and how you answer from here, I can see your adulation if a test was confirmed, but I don't see any possibility of a falsification event. You don't admit wrong, or even doubts or problems. I don't see you being up to acknowledging falsification. sorry...I just have not seen that trait. You probably think your ideas about souls and destinies of souls is testable as well. Everyone's got a test....every idea has a prediction. You want to call that a scientific falsification standard...I wish people wouldn't do this.to science. try to own it, change - soften typically - the definitions....get their theory in that way. deutsch does it...I mean that's all he's got....he's not even sincere about criticismI've never seen anyone do so much to shield his ideas from criticism. Your idea is t better than any of his, but you've got shared trait scretly thinking scientific discovery is easy to vary, easy to happen, easy to define and easy to dfine your own version of. You never seem to explain - or him - why only traditional hard science ever produced enduringly influential theories. Or him. Just bad luck I suppose everything else. > > (the scheme of TOEs) given, and indeed the test that we have been able > to do have not (yet) refute classical computationalism, and do refute many > use f Gödel or QM against computationalism. > > < > > ... -- 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.
