On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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)?ma >
It doesn't matter that it is a standard consequence of something....not in the narrow issue of falsifiability. > > 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 sciethance and makes it problematic. PGC > Well, first of all, it's meaningless to leave my addy out when you are clearly speaking about me. It's also important to be clear that you are continuing your argument by other means in what you are saying, and that when an individual attempts to discredit another individual on bad-motivation grounds, and addresses other individuals which he has interacted with for longer, that is a serious escalation and extremely personal. There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating that for me, the salient point about the article was that the distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth. It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, you are the one's being less than honest, intellectually. Not me. -- 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.
