On 08 Jun 2014, at 05:41, LizR wrote:
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that
above one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to
continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, <[email protected]> wrote:
But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not
responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even
invited him to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't
responded to, and I would demonstrate the reason I'd stopped
responding was that Bruno presented 'no case to answer'. Silence
from PGC.
I'm afraid I missed this. I don't have time to read everything and
especially tend to skip those incredibly long posts with stuff
interpolated (is that the word?) into the text and nested 15 levels
deep. And I am quite interested in this argument, too!
Nice.
That is, I believe I can see both sides, so I am interested in
evidence for either.
Exactly like me.
And later things aggravate: exactly like all löbian number "in some
consciousness state".
As I jokingly say, on days with an R in them I feel Bruno has the
answer to life, the universe and everything, on the other days I
feel the force of the materialist objections (amongst others) and
feel that they "refute it THUS!"
"THUS!". Yes. You see the problem.
PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is
it...the guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in
here? When has he ever described anything he believes in, in plain
English?
I'm sure I've seen some plain English posts from PGC, and some that
seem to me to make good points. But I can't quote chapter and verse
on that. But flowery language abounds here, methinks, so I try to
parse it and either it looks like a camel to me, my lord, or a cloud.
Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at
explaining what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value
their dizzy comp experiences, my arguments ignored by Bruno....and
all of this despite it being me to be mentioning a take on
falsification that the vast majority of science, historically and
now would agree with?
You should see me on the Tronnies thread, or trying to explain why
time symmetry in physics may be important for understanding quantum
theory. YANA.....You are not alone.
And now this new issue, with PGC and Bruno making constructive
arguments about scientists accepting certain arguments, and so by
some sort of logic accepting Bruno's theory. Which happens to
involve things like eternal life for us, consciousness not being
generated by our brains...direct links to MWI. That latest argument,
I simply rejected by pointing out that not everyone does accept MWI,
who accept QM.
No, indeed not. Although sometimes the reasons aren't very
convincing (Jim Al Khalili just really likes Bohm's take, or so he
told me). But anyway consensus views get short thrift on this forum.
These are really really controversial claims, and there's no way
it's reasonable to think that if someone accepts comp as some high
level proposal, that if they were forced to choose between that and
all of the above, they can be relied on to stick with comp.
And if they can't be relied on...if there's a reasonable prospect
scientists will rather reject comp than accept infinities of dreams,
and eternal life, and consciousness outside the body...if there's a
reasonable chance they'll rather reject comp than accept that, then
the thing to do WITH INTEGRITY is acknowledge that, and not be going
around saying they accept something.
Yes comp strikes me as highly contraversial, which is why have been
trying to get to grips with it, to decide where I stand. But I have
got stuck at the MGA and (I think) some Kripkean logic.
If you get step 3 I am already glad. Step 7 needs the understanding of
the notion of universal number when written in some (Turing universal)
base.
I recall the number u is universal (in the base phi_i), if
phi_u(<x,y>)= phi_x(y). Such u is sigma_1 complete, and becomes Löbian
when he proves p -> []p for all p sigma_1.
What you miss, and many miss, is the mathematical, actually
arithmetical definition of "beweisbar", the "[]p" hypostase which is
the one which explains the presence of all its "rivals", the "[]p &
p", notably.
The creative bomb is Gödel's theorem, and the discovery of the
universal machine (hated and loved by different mathematicians, and
which does bring some amount of mess in Platonia.
I can't get even an infinity of computations to grok some of that
stuff.
Nobodies does.
More precisely. No sigma_1 complete and pi_1 incomplete (machines)
entities does.
Pi_1 complete set (which are still arithmetical, but no more
computable) can solve much more, but are still incomplete with respect
to the arithmetical truth.
But come on! All you need is a good diary, patience, and well, you
might have good manuals with you like the Mendelson, Boolos,
Smorynski, and you might need to see by your own eyes the equivalence
between a bunch of universal numbers/languages/machines/systems.
I'm dropping this now. I'm technically saying sorry for calling
someone a liar, but for everything else I think the integrity issues
are somewhere else. And it really doesn't matter if you all want to
gang up and not see any of these issues. Collective blindspots are
hardly anything new in the world.
I think "gang up" is probably the last thing the members of this
forum will do!
("Die, my dear Doctor? Why, that's the last thing I shall do!")
That reminds me a piece in a movie by Bunuel, where a sick patient
asked his doctor to be truthful about his condition. The doctor
started in a very long unintelligible description after which the
patient asked a summary, and the doctor said "you have a cancer". The
patient looked the doctor straight in the eyes and then slapped him,
and went out.
If health is mixed with politics, the state becomes a monopolistic
drug dealer, and your taxes are used not to save you of disease but to
hide the cheap and efficacious medications. For them cancer is not a
problem, it is a market.
It is out of topic but confirmations of cures add up, and permissions
are given to test chemo + cannabis:
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/anecdotal-reports-anti-cancer-effects-cannabis-oil-pile-doctors-stress-need-document-its
I am not an advocate of cannabis, but an advocate of looking at the
evidences and avoiding invalid generalization.
I ask myself if the confusion between p->q and q->p should not be
punished by laws, as propaganda.
Legalized drugs, make propaganda, and lies in advertising, punishable
perhaps ...
Bruno
--
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.
