From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:46, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 1 Jun 2018, at 03:25, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> On 31 May 2018, at 02:33, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Of course something can make some computations unreal, namely
their non-existence in the world.
Which World?
Rhetorical flourish!
Not at all.
You know, God was a nickname for “the ultimate truth we are
searching when doing fundamental science”, and the “blasphemy” was
for any invocation and special use of of concept like “true”,
“reality”, “world” … the use of this is invalid. You could as well
invoke miracle.
So you lack some background in metaphysics and/or what is the
scientific attitude.
I think the intellectual battles of the classical era are well behind us.
?
It was realized a long time ago that these idea are ultimately sterile,
Which ideas? The metaphysical question? Yes, the answer to them have
been imposed by terror since 1500 years. That has not solved them.
The problems were sterile, and it was realized that there was no useful
question to answer.
and the scientific approach has gradually achieved dominance.
In the natural science, thanks to the Enlightenment period, made
possible by the jews and muslim metaphysicians who were able to
continue the research in the Middle east for six more centuries.
But in theology, the least we can say is that the scientific approach
has not yet taken dominance. The choice is still between an
inconsistent materialism or the pope-ayatollah (the boss is right)
kind of theories.
You are not helping science by abandoning the field to the
professional con men.
I am certainly not abandoning the field to you!
I think you should abandon this outmoded framework for your thinking
and join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
You are the one abandoning the scientific attitude here.
You cannot appeal to an ontological commitment in science.
There is no ontological commitment in phenomenology -- unless you
want to deny the existence of consciousness….
Ah, so you think that the notion of world used by Brent was
phenomenological?
That makes my point in that case, as physics must becomes
phenomenological, which was all I needed to justify.
Physics is, as is all science, based on observation and experiment.
The phenomena are the subject matter of science.
Not the fundamental science, which try to infer some simple relations
accounting for the origin and phenomena.
The "fundamental science" as you call it is an illusion. There quite
possibly are no simple relations accounting for the origin and the
phenomena. The phenomena have to be described and understood on their
own terms.
But the phenomena are matters of sensory experience, not of abstract
axiomatic reasoning. That, too, was realized a long time ago when
Kant's attempt to make 3-dimensional Euclidean space a necessity of
thought failed.
Kant failed? Show me the paper.
Any textbook on non-Euclidean geometry would suffice.
Only his premise based on some naive interpretation of the physics of
his time was false. Its main idea is implied and generalised by
Mechanism. And the opposite idea requires a non Turing emulable
machine in the body, which is usually considered as speculative (no
evidence at all, and a lot of strong counterevidences, like the
failure of physicalism to link mind and matter since very long).
Physical theories of the brain, based on extensive empirical research,
have linked the mind and consciousness to physical brain activity in
irrefutable ways.
By saying this you do show that you identify science with Aristotelian
Materialism. That is bad science, and bad philosophy.
Sez you. But then, you are no authority......
Here is you god, selecting an histories, or a class of histories.
How? Magical power? Then I can no more say yes to the doctor
without praying or something.
More empty rhetorical flourishes. We know that when you resort to
your store of empty rhetorical flourishes that you have no answer
to the substantive points that have been made.
*That* is pure rhetorical flourishes. You avoid the reasoning.
What reasoning? You did not offer any reasoning. Merely assertions
and rhetorical flourishes.
That is simply a lie.
You do not offer any argument in the above. It is mere assertion. What
you say elsewhere is irrelevant to the present discussion.
All what I say has been verified multiple times by independent people
in different countries, and I have given an informal version,
accessible to kids, in this list. The reasoning is exposed notably here:
B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
International System Administration and Network Engineering
Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>
The arguments presented in SANE04 are invalid. Not only invalid, but
spurious. Anything that you have ever claimed about comp (mechanism)
follows from the implementation of the UD in arithmetic. Since this is
pure platonism -- the assumption of arithmetical realism -- it is
vanquished with the falsity of platonism.
Ask if you want more detailed version.
Now, I can also reverse the charge. If you believe in both materialism
and mechanism, which I have shown to be inconsistent when taken
together, then provide the counter-example: a physicalist theory of
mind in which we can say yes doctor, and which does not violate
Church’s thesis.
I do not have to provide an alternative theory in order to prove your
theory wrong. Maxwell's theory of electomagnetism was known to be wrong
long before any viable alternative theory was constructed.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
