On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Is this not, as you have stated before on this list if I remember correctly, a standard consequence of Turing Machines (I'm referring to dreaming, second-order reality)? I'm still not convinced by the "falsification attacks" of late; they seem to me just reductionism in disguise of pursuit of clarity. We are doubting now falsification as laid out by our advances in computability in the last century? I don't see the alternatives many posts of late here apparently are assuming, while most seem to ignore the elephant follow-up "do you take Quantum Logic then to be empirical; how do you manage then?" As if this standard were leveraged against other TOEs seriously on all levels (which ones satisfy such things completely btw?), and therefore comp should abide concerning personal ultimate answers, falsification, prediction, and all this stuff that appeals to my insecurity and bad sci-fi writing. Smells like prohibition/authoritative argument. Like the academic prancing around of labels, qualification histories, the Salvia post appearing designed to get people to "lower their defenses", so they can be attacked for speaking not literally/correctly, apologies for not biting btw; and the related posturing of meta-arguments and psychology across different threads lately, ending in insults and useless "I know what you're thinking via label"- stuff. This I consider unscientific and ties in with the theological discussion in the other thread: posing as if these things were decided, set, and going on personal crusade for fancy projections instead of sticking to the relevant points in discussion. That's what distinguishes crusading from science and makes it problematic. PGC > > 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. > -- 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.
