On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:31:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Nov 2014, at 23:31, John Mikes wrote: > > What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our > "optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence of the > mth imaginary idea. > > Art is agnostic. That's about it for that. philosophers are political and it hasn't been the scientists putting it about sciene is agnostic but non-scientific philosophers. But science has never been agnostic. It is a Faith. In a naturalistic world view, and that it is discoverable but only with our best of best of best, and not with our creativity guessing constructions in reason. That's pre-science and the problem it had was everything needed to be defined up front. And what that meant was, ultimately the consequences simply confirmed whatever set them off.
Science emerged as the solution to that. By reversing everything out basically. So now the defining part was the concluding part at the end. And it was easy to do, it was hard. And a fundamental problem of traversing a backward running reasoning emerged. And the solution to that was prediction. And the prediction of that is that, theories that don't predict go back to defining up front and back out of science. And scientific theories predict and define at conclusion. ;And well structured theories like yours have the possibility if there is total commitment to truth, of up-levelling to science. But in your case it may not happen because currently you ascend yourself to 'science' simply by revising science back to philosophy. It is a pretty obvious logical fact lthat if you have an easy to vary factor, in any equation, then whatever you wantequtation to say is a matter of adjusting easy to vary part. So your equation for what science is going to tell you exactly what you want to hear, if you have the authority to slide the standards up and down. It's what Deutsch does.. For me that's about people not honouring the pact to when it comes round we all put truth above our own theory. Because Truth has only ever been advanced by high standards non-trivial predictions Hard Science. > The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy-born and > exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately words: a psychotic > mass murderer - ha ha). > Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations, > hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake, rotting > in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love', 'justice', > forgiveness' and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes first. > Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/misunderstood > observations - and - mathematics. A huge system. > > Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental prowess to > vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation, self defence into > imperialistic warring. > Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps the > global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious storms and > less rainfall etc.) > Something like that... > > > Science is agnostic. That is why we need to put back theology in science, > so that we can develop agnostic theories, or narratives, precise enough to > show them wrong, and progress. > > The problems rarely come from the ideas or theories, but only from he fact > that some people dare to impose ideas to others by violence (verbal or with > bullets). > > I like your agnosticism, and the computationalist theory explains why for > all machines, agnosticism optimizes the ability to change your mind and > recognize that a theory is wrong in this or that aspect. It is the > pre-condition of progressing toward a possible truth we can hope for. > > But even if we find it, we can't communicate as such. It will just happen > that some ideas will never be refuted, despite their many consequences. > > For this to happen, we need to take our theories seriously, and work them > out.Taking something seriously does not mean taking them as dogma or truth. > > In the fundamental realm, nothing should be taken for granted, but simple > assumption are needed, as we cannot explain anything without some > assumption, in the public setting. > > Bruno > > > > > JM > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> JM >> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the >> star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific >> speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point >> of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species and its >> descendents, why not go for the highest hanging fruit? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Mikes <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> To: everything-list <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm >> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact >> >> Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" >> universes, so you can decry a 'possibility' of such? >> >> Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'? >> >> JM >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < >> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail >>> >>> Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I >>> wonder if this provides any means to interact or make contact with these >>> world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but the study kind >>> of seems to direct the mind towards that possibility. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < >>> [email protected] <javascript:>> >>> To: everything-list <[email protected] <javascript:>> >>> Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM >>> Subject: RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact >>> >>> >>> Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's >>> subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics >>> >>> >>> >>> Read more at: >>> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp >>> >>> Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of >>> quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and >>> interactions between, parallel universes. >>> >>> In a paper published in the prestigious journal *Physical Review X*, >>> Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for >>> Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of >>> California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science >>> fiction and into that of hard science. >>> The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they >>> interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds >>> influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such >>> an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum >>> mechanics <http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/> >>> Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the >>> microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is >>> notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to >>> violate the laws of cause and effect. >>> As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once >>> noted: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum >>> mechanics." >>> However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith >>> University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field. >>> "The idea of parallel universes >>> <http://phys.org/tags/parallel+universes/> in quantum mechanics has >>> been around since 1957," says Professor Wiseman. >>> "In the well-known "Many-Worlds Interpretation", each universe branches >>> into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All >>> possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the >>> dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised >>> by the Portuguese. >>> "But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they >>> do not influence our universe at all. On this score, our "Many Interacting >>> Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies." >>> Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that: >>> >>> - The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of >>> worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different; >>> - All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through >>> time, and possess precisely defined properties; >>> - All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion >>> between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more >>> dissimilar. >>> >>> Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the >>> extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds. >>> "The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our >>> theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number >>> of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics," he says. >>> "In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory >>> nor quantum theory <http://phys.org/tags/quantum+theory/>. >>> "We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum >>> effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit >>> quantum >>> phenomena <http://phys.org/tags/quantum+phenomena/>." >>> The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of >>> worlds could have significant ramifications in molecular dynamics, which is >>> important for understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs. >>> Professor Bill Poirier, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas >>> Tech University, has observed: "These are great ideas, not only >>> conceptually, but also with regard to the new numerical breakthroughs they >>> are almost certain to engender." >>> >>> -- >>> 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>> <javascript:>. >>> 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>> <javascript:>. >>> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
