On 29 Aug 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You don't even quote the entire sentence.
You mean the one where you said "I will no more comment
" ?
Yes.
> You don't even quote and answer any of the question asked in
any of the last post.
I saw several question marks in the last post but I saw no
questions. Ask me any question and I'll give you an answer or say I
don't know, but I can't respond to gibberish.
I was alluding on how you predict your subjective experience when you
do an experience in physics in a robust universe (running a universal
dovetailer).
> your systematic and local opportunistic 1p/3p confusion.
I don't know about "systematic and local opportunistic"
but there is not one person on the planet who suffers from 1p/3p
confusion, however EVERYBODY on the planet suffers from 1-1p/
1p confusion and 3-1p/3p confusion, and the most
confused of all is Bruno Marchal.
None of the members of any of the three juries who have study the
proof has had any problem with that.
Only materialist philosophers have had a problem, and not even with
this, but with the conclusion, and those wre philosophers having
already harrass students daring to say that people like Everett or
Gödel were interesting (sic).
> Convince just one person (on or out of line) and ask him/her
to expose it here.
Convince the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society that
you're not talking nonsense and have them make you a member; and
then convince the International Congress of Mathematicians and have
them award you the Fields Metal and announce it all here.
I never thought on that. Actually, I have *never* submitted anything.
I just sometimes publish when some people invite me to publish.
Tha math part is not enough to be proposed to Fields Medals, as it is
to simple (yet origianl) theorems and less simple open problems (one
of which has been solved since).
You are basically making an argument by authority here, and you
confess that you don't take my work seriously only because you think
it is a startling result (thanks!) and that it would not have be
admitted by the scientific communauty.
But it is admitted by all scientists, and analytical philosophers,
having read the work. And only one of them has changes his mind,
indeed on step 3, but I know no-one having read his argument without
sighing or laughing, and suggesting me to not answer it, as it is
grossly self-defeating (like your post actually, to which I answer as
I am interested in the bad-faith phenomenon (I encouter it also in
antisemitisme and antisionnisme propaganda, and the whole wars on
drug, and more recently wars on terror).
Now, as it bears also on philosophy and theology, it is true that some
religiously-minded materialists philosophers does not like at all the
type of reality that computationalism is leading to. Crazily enough,
they believe that, by being philosophers, it is enough to argue from
personal conviction. (But this illustrates some key point that I
derive from self-reference, and which indeed shows that a part of the
academical philosophy is just using philosophy to keep alive their
favorite dogma in that field).
Focus on the point. Tell me if you critics makes still sense at step
4. Stop faking to have problem with the vocabulary, as I have been
able to show to everybody that you do understand the definition (and
even vindicate them), so the last non-understanding are indeed 100%
opportunist.
Also, by the way, you said that you were open to the idea that
mathematics could be more fundamental than physics. This contradict
your use of primitive "hardware" to pretend that a computation needs
to be run physically to exist. This is even more astonishing, given
that everybody in the filed knows that computations and computability
are provably arithmetical notion (assuming Church or Turing's theses).
If you have heard of some scientist having both read the work, and
disagree with it, just give me a name, as I have never encouter one.
Suggest them to make the remark here, or to publish a refutation, or
to send it to me. The most negative statements I have ever heard are
of the type "The mind-body problem is not my expertise".
And what you said on Plato proves that it is not really your "cup of
tea" either, isn't it?
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.
