On 09 Mar 2015, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I never said one word about matter being fundamental, in fact I
think if anything is fundamental it's consciousness not matter;
however I did say that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable
and you said I was confused. So cure my confusion by giving me a
EXAMPLE (not a loquacious definition that is so general it's
useless) of a non-materialistic theory that is falsifiable.
> Darwinism and general relativity are two examples amongst many of
scientific theories that are falsifiable but do not assume
materialism.
What on earth are you talking about?! Darwin theorized that systems
that are made out of MATERIAL that have the capacity to duplicate
themselves sometimes don't do so perfectly and sometimes those
changes enable the MATERIAL system to reproduce faster in a given
MATERIAL environment than if the copying had been perfect. And
General Relativity makes very very precise predictions of how the
trajectory of light and any other MATERIAL thing will change when it
passes near a large MATERIAL object. How are these supposed to be
non-materialistic theories?
> I think you already realised your mistake
Bullshit.
> The fact that the presence of a term on Wikipedia gives us some
assurance that it is a useful term does not imply that the absence
of a term from Wikipedia is a signal that the term is useless.
As a matter of fact it does. A language is useless if you're the
only one who knows it, and Bruno's terms are used nowhere except on
this list.
Since I am on research gate, I see that I am cited. Not a lot, but
Everett too was ignored, and strictly speaking I say something more
shocking (for the aristotelian) than Everett. Give time to time:
scientists are used to be conservative. It is normal.
Are you insinuating that the jury of my PhD, in Brussels and Lille,
were stupid? None find any mistakes.
Or that the jury of the price I got in Paris were stupid? All what I
say is translatable in arithmetic, and has been verified by courageous
(as it takes time) people.
The problem I do have with the academy comes from Aristotelian
philosophers who defend dogma.
Some also makes their carrier by mocking my erlaier idea, that logic
has application in computer science and things like that. All this is
made even more complex by the fact that I have been a wittness of
scandalous behavior, apparently from "important" people (who publish
nothing, so "important" is reported to me, but without any explanation
of what that means.
It is better to focus on the reasoning, instead of doing this
sociological analysis.
Another problem is that Penrose made big mistake on Gödel, and so
physicist get very shy on it. Similarly, few logician are aware of the
QM interpretation problem, and consider that "parallel universes" are
pure fantasy.
That is part of the difficulty of the subject, and I participate to
this list, because people were at the start open minded on Everett,
and Everything-like, or Nothing-like theories.
And there is no point in inventing new acronyms for very very old
ideas, for example FPI just means "I don't know";
That is false. It is a special case of "I don't know", like both
traditional statistics gives other examples, and Turing's analysis
gives new examples, and quantum mechanics gives new example. The FPI
is "I don't know", OK, but for reason not present in traditional
statistics, nor in Turing, nor relying on quantum mechanics.
I don't understand how you miss this point.
as for UDA , well..., I still haven't found any coherent consistent
non-circular explanation of what that's all about.
But you admit stopping at step 3, so it is hard to have an idea of
what you have done here.
And you have convince nobody of your refutation of step 3, given that
you ask precision on pronouns, (my speciality in computer science,
btw, and AUDA, gives the mathematical definition of all pronouns and
view, for the mathematician allergic to thought experiement: and that
is the thesis. Yet most people find UDA much more easier, which is
natural, given that it needs only a passive understanding of Church
thesis, unlike AUDA, which needs a good familiarity with mathematical
logic).
I found the FPI (UDA step 3) before the math of Kleene, but I found
the step 7 from the study of mathematical logic. In the original long
version, The UDA is in fact the UDP: the universal dovetailer Paradox,
and it is used
only to motivate for the intensional variants of the provability
logic. UDA is just the interview of the universal machine made simple
for the layman.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
