On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote: > > >As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to > >segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs > >to show that either his premises or his argument is wrong... > > > Not exactly. The premise can be wrong, true, or indeterminate, > without making the reasoning invalid. In fact, in the classical > frame, a refutation of the premise would make the reasoning > vacuously valid. Now that reasoning shows a means to refute the > premise: basically: compare the physics found in the head of all > universal Turing machine, and if it is contradicted by nature then > the premise are false (or I, or we, are dreaming or live in a > second-order reality) >
This last qualification is disturbing, as it would appear remove the possibility of falsification of COMP. But before we go that far, why would COMP predict a different sort of physics for "dreaming" or "second order reality"? Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
