On 26 Jun 2015, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jun 2015, at 14:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
And that is singularly uninteresting, because it does not even
come close to relating to the real world.
Well, if comp is true, it is the real world. Come on, it is just
arithmetical truth, plus intensional computer science theoretical
higher level description.
But it gives no useful results!
We search the consequence of computationalism, not *necessarily*
useful results.
Then there is something useful: to make human doubting the current
theological paradigm of christians and (non-agnostic) atheists.
Universal machine teach a lesson of modesty.
But I insist: it is not my theory. It is today the only theory, if we
except ... aristotelian religions.
It is computer science. You seem to forget the tautology: comp uses
computer science. We tackle a very complex, deep and hot question.
You argument is of the type: show me how String Theory can improve
the quality of the pizza.
Nothing like. All I ask of string theory is that it gives some
results that correspond to observation -- like a derivation of the
Standard Model from more fundamental principles. But it has failed
to do this, even after 30 or more years of effort. So that even
string theorist have given up on this endeavour. So string theory
has failed as a theory of physics, just as comp has failed as a
theory of anything at all.
Computer science has failed? My first prediction for which I was said
to be crackpot was that computers would invade the everybody's home.
The second one was the development of AI and heuristics, the third one
was the quantum computer (indeed the comp-quantum computer), etc.
It is interesting that string theorists, for a while, felt that
physics might be deducible from the statistics of the worlds
corresponding to the 10^500 or more possibilities in the landscape
of possible windings of the Calabi-Yau compactification spaces. This
failed too, so most have given up on even this. String theory, at
the latest conference, Strings 2015, has been reduced to discussion
of some outstanding mathematical issues -- they have given up on
relating the theory to the real world or ever coming up with a
testable prediction that is borne out. (There are plenty of testable
predictions from the like of Gordon Kane that have failed as each
new wave of data has come from the LHC.) So, despite repeated
failures and falsifications, the die-hards refuse to abandon their
failed theory. Rather like comp, actually.
Well, if you have another theory of mind. With AUDA we explain the
talk of the mystics and show it to be the only rational option. It
explain qualia and quanta in a testable way, which would be wrong if
either QM or Gödel was wrong. It leads also to an interesting, but
complex problem. It is also the only known explanation why there is a
physical reality, and a conscious reality. Using primary matter in
this setting is no more convincing than using the Virgin Mary.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
