On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> >> 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. >
In what context? I have not seen you clarify. >> 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 > Nope. Still asking the same question. Not even defending comp or Bruno's work at this point and merely asking: where is yours? Where do you stand concerning falsification? I am genuinely curious and willing to listen if you have found a flaw with Bruno's work. I'm ready to listen if you have even something vaguely interesting to say about falsification. Apologies, but a claim to a problem with falsification, without reference to clear assumptions and precise target within the constraints of the work in question, even with your great skill in rhetoric, does not convince me. I don't believe comp is true either, as you seem to assume. > 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. > Sure, carrot soup is harder to bite than chicken soup. Most posts with you lately are, to detriment of clarity, "extremely personal", when there is disagreement (what is "science proper" about this?). I already stated you contradict the opening statement of FoR in which DD shoots down falsification/prediction fetish from his end, after which you switched to linguistic "pal register", and laughed it off, after unloading all manner of psychological personal arguments (which still surprises me, because all I did was disagree with the absolute status you attached to your "falsification argument", given that you never presented it fully or even sketch it out; this in line with your "salvia thread humility statement to Richard" today btw) or some projection of comp you are entertaining, but not even clarifying. I can only shrug and repeat: So what? Does quantum logic satisfy your "falsification notion" or not? How about computability and/or properties of arithmetic or anything with equivalent descriptive capacity, please share which and how, if so. > 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 > I believe that, on some level of reality, regarding function and mechanism. But what does this have to do with your falsification point? > and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on > comp, > That's too fast. If anything, my position, regardless of Bruno's (yeah, got my own brain and can spout falsities and bullshit, quite independently from comp and Bruno's work, regardless of its truth status), is that many scientists might not go far enough exploring the consequences of the mechanist bet. A bet most scientist's feet are firmly planted on; assuming they want to know how stuff works. Perhaps people suffer unnecessarily for missing some ambiguity regarding person > you are the one's being less than honest, intellectually. Not me. > What does this, my honesty as a person, have to do with your point on falsification? This is scientific humility to you, claiming in Salvia thread "at least you know theological humility blah, blah you don't pretend your stance is not religion" to Richard? Go ahead though: apply this sense of humility to your notion of falsification and enlighten us, live up to your word; the fancy attacks don't advance any points, which is why, given continuation of same trend, I will continue to disagree with and ignore them. Yes, for this last point I can do both, and remain uncertainly yours, Q(uantum)PGC. > > > -- > 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.
