> On 5 Jun 2014, at 8:13 am, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5 June 2014 07:49, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the
>> beginning.
>>>
>>> Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
>>
>> You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. Russell
>> Standish read it...he understood.
>>
>> So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months.
> I don't believe Bruno is a liar.
>
> Can't you restart the discussion, politely, from first principles, and see
> where you differ?
>
> I haven't read the entire exchange - it's been huge - but it seems you claim
> comp makes no testable predictions, while Bruno says it does.
>
> As I understand it, comp makes more testable predictions than string theory!
> Not sure that puts it into the refutable club, though. I've claimed that comp
> isn't a theory but a logical argument, but apparently I was wrong about that.
> As a theory it needs to be testable, which means it can be falsified... So a
> definition of falsification would seem like a good place to start, certainly.
> And I remember you gave a rather comprehensive one.
>
> So I guess I should ask Bruno, did you read it? If so, did you agree with it?
>
I strongly doubt that Bruno will respond to this. I wouldn't if I were him; not
because there is nothing to respond to but because the manner of the
communication appears to have reached the nadir at least from Al. Al, take your
meds or whatever you need to destress and maybe seriously consider doing the
following:
Instead of blathering on a-treat, summarise in no more than four or five
concise bullet points your notion of falsifiability. Could you do that, mate? I
for one would welcome this. It has been an enormous thread and I think in such
cases a revisitation of the main points in as simple a format as humanly
possible makes sense and would help many, including yours truly. Perhaps the
plot has been lost. Nobody would seriously doubt the seriousness and the
passion of your approach - that leaps off the screen. You are however, given to
raving on in a rhapsodic manner about stuff. I simply want to see how simply
and clearly you can put it all down. Perhaps Bruno might welcome that too.
Following that, if you both don't see eye to eye then that will be apparent and
the nature of the disagreement will be clearly revealed. There is no law which
requires people to see eye to eye about things. Your differences of opinion
about falsifiability are indeed very interesting and instructive. Stop living
in a world of "I am right; you are wrong" - that merely reveals your deep
emotional need for others to agree with you on what you consider core issues.
Perhaps Bruno means what he says: he doesn't get you. If you do what I ask, you
can give him his last chance. If he fails it in your eyes - well, maybe just
get over it, man. Move on. Just move on.
Kim
> --
> 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.
