On 05 Jun 2014, at 15:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
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
Good analysis. I should not reply to insults, simply. It is slef-
deafeating. But ghibbsa was usually polite. That burst astonsihed me.
That is often (but not always) a symptom of lack of trust in your point.
Bruno
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 everything-
[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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
