On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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. > Well, my impatient reaction might have something to do with it. If so, apologies. It's simply hard for me to see a notion of falsification eroding the notions made precise for Church Thesis, Turing Universality, incompleteness, QM and QL, Löb, the link to Plotinus, by extension UDA etc; just as it's hard to see space time curvature supplanted by p-time or the statement that two peoples' watches will stay the same traveling at different speed. There is a lot of great work and a lot of logic to fit any taste as precedence for standards of falsification. Why the QL question is avoided, I cannot understand. Why/how Ghibbsa perceives falsification without referencing the appropriate math under attack is also beyond me. You'd have to show where these gentlemen who's work is referenced here, went wrong regarding falsification, or where Bruno, who has been nothing but a gentleman in this thread, catering to every attack with care/respect as a sincere scientific question, did the same. My patience ran out a while ago, like when somebody says something serious, but then starts bantering and moving to meta-and seemingly unrelated psychological levels and attacks, which is why the thread may have turned sour; but I can always flip a switch and give it another shot, as I can always be wrong, quite simply. I can understand Kim's "why would he answer at all?" After this much time spent replying to Ghibbsa's posts and dealing with all the claims and personal attacks without reference, at some point a person will just leave the room; which is not to imply that this is such a point, nor that Bruno is such a person. But at some point this is understandable. PGC > > 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. > -- 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.
