On 29 Jun 2015, at 03:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jun 2015, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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.
Bruno, this habit of yours of taking something a person has written
and deliberately misrepresenting it in order to offer a bit of
gratuitous ridicule has become rather annoying.
I never do that. This is a gratuitous unfounded idea, or show me
where. certainly not here.
"My" big discovery is the computer, alias the universal numbers. I
discovery them in reading Watson and Jacob and Monod. I decide to
study math instead of biology, by reading Gödel. My opponents were
only mathematicians who dislike Gödel's work and dislike even more
possible application of it in theoretical computer science. My first
project was in opening a department of computer science in my
university.
My work is in computer science, and understood without any trouble by
computer scientists, even when they have no interests in the mind-body
problem.
You do your case no service by descending to rhetorical devices like
this.
You are the one doing ad hominem remark.
You talk like if there were a flaw, but then please show it.
It looks like you get step 3. I guess you have no problem between step
3 and step 6.
Do you see that the reversal occurs already with the step 7 protocol?
I have no problem explaining anything you might have problem with.
Yet, my experience is that when people adopt a dismissive tone, they
are usually not listening to the explanation.
From step 0 to step 7, it is purely deductive. Step 8 uses Occam. In
fact with a stronger form of Occam, you get the complete reversal at
step 7. Step 8 is more subtle, and only weakened the use of Occam
razor by showing explicitly that you need the primary stuff to have a
non Turing emulable components to incarnate consciousness.
Some argue that AUDA is enough impressive to use the weak Occam
already at step seven, but I doubt that, and as few people get really
AUDA (as they ignore basic theoretical computer science), I continue
to insist also on step 8. It is also useful for people unaware of the
mind-body problem.
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.
