> On 20 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:16:58 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Jun 2019, at 00:13, Pierz <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:05:53 PM UTC+10, PGC wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:15:43 AM UTC+2, Pierz wrote: >> >> I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of reality >> which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. >> >> Lol then this list would be about the wrongest place in the world, right? >> >> I mean Jesus, behold all the attempts to assimilate the discourse of your >> post immediately! You apparently appear as fresh meat to all the members. >> >> Especially in demonstrating how well your post and thoughts would do under a >> better regime... ;-) What fantastic academic armor you would wear, how >> colors would appear to you, how Yoda would formulate syntax (btw it's "Red, >> I am!" you morons), how arithmetic would make love to you, how Bruno would >> know whether Telmo is wrong, and on top of that Deleuze too! Never mind that >> Deleuze and the infinitely undecided Christian consciousness soul >> fundamentalists on this list are as far apart as Plato is from logging on to >> the web in his dialogues... "You would most certainly do well on our team is >> the consensus here", lol. >> >> How about going full bore on avoiding fundamental discussions? As in >> resisting the urge to prove to ourselves... anything! Asking instead perhaps >> where you want the thing to go? What you want your discourse to perform? >> What... IT... does? Leaving the whole parental "should" and "respectability" >> formations, the originality vanities, historical pornography, Christian >> reputations, saints and names, pretense towards some real fundamental or >> truth thing... leaving all that crap behind and asking how can discourse >> perform or leave room for things at the destination? >> >> Goes without saying that if you're resourceful enough to free yourself of >> the prison section of your own discourse fortress, bribing yourself as the >> guard on the bridge, not paying mind to heights and alligators living in the >> moat: then you got some black ops work ahead of you. The kind of work where, >> if it is done pro, teams have each others' backs and words instead of >> whining around and bickering endlessly like everybody else... who run from >> themselves by lowering the bar of expectations enough to definitely not make >> a mistake, not take risks, to not finish things and see them through, and >> instead be forever amazed by their usual wishful thinking with infinitely >> precise and accurate explanations that fill books and waste precious time, >> because they need recruits for what they can't themselves believe: the road >> beyond the personal discourse fortress is not safe. It is wondrous, filled >> with infinite opportunity that satiates everything in abundance. But it's >> not for cowards or those that fear seeing blood, which is why the shy folks >> stay home and defend the thing forever. PGC >> >> Howdy cowboy. I know what you're saying. Everyone here has their drum to >> bang - and bang it they will! I once described the fight between John Clark >> and Bruno over the third person indeterminacy > > First person indeterminacy. Like in Everett, the probability (and the > collapse) are first person experience. There is no third person > self-reference. I just correct your typo. > > Apologies, yes of course I meant that,
OK, no problem. > > >> (step 3 or whatever it is) as being like one of those Siberian coal fires >> that has been burning since the start of the 20th century. I think for now >> it is dormant - but I'm hesitant even to mention it, since that may be all >> it needs to burst into flame again... It all becomes rather sterile and >> exhausting even to watch. Hence why I'm not here so much any more. > > You did show complete understanding of this in your publication of the UDA. I > understand you don’t follow the thread on it, but you might thing helping > those who does not understand, or perhaps fake to not understand, etc. > > To me the idea of first person indeterminacy is pretty simple and obvious, To most people, I think. > and is the basis for MWI - so I don't know why JC doesn't get it, or if he > pretends not to as you say. In his recent post, he applied the same in Everett, which is new. But then he has to say that with Everett there is no reason to take the lift or to jump out of the windows, because he get 100% certainty on all outcomes, and that is contradicted by all experience in physics. > What I understand even less is why you bother to continue the debate with him > over it when he's clearly entrenched in his position and will never budge. Clark, at least, do this in public, where my philosopher opponents do it exclusively behind my back, so it is a way to answer to this, and indeed illustrates that such opposition is mainly the usual irrational attachement to the materialist dogma. I try to measure the degree of irrationality, and I illustrate its existence by the same token. > Life's too short to spend it banging your head against a brick wall. There are many brick wall. But sometimes you can understand how they work, and why they do that, which can help for the future. But you can skip the posts of course. > > >> On the other hand, we're all people who are in love with trying to >> understand the deep nature of things, and whatever human foibles get in the >> way, surely it's not the worst possible way to go to through the world. >> Anyway, to your main point, there is, I think, a point, beyond the >> intellectual game. I have no interest in defending any fortress. > > Nor do I. Nobody can know if I personally believe or not in Mechanism. > Defending ideas is a waste of time, I think. > > Isn't that what you were doing in your endless wrangle with JC though? On the contrary, I show that mechanism require some faith, I insist all the time it is my working assumption. I explain why it has to be an hypothesis, and that those will say science has shown mechanism to be true are necessarily con-artist. Then I show also that the mechanist assumption is refutable, and indeed, if the material modes were not quantum-like, I would judge Mechanism implausible. Clark is the one who say that mechanism is not an assumption. He insisted on this in his recent post again. I like mechanism, but only because it leads to a precise theory, refutable, and it illustrates that with *some* hypothesis, we can reason, peacefully, and get testable consequences, and so do what is usually called science. Better to search the key under the lamp, at least we might discover that they are not there! Bruno > >> I believe that the western bias towards thinking in terms of things with >> intrinsic properties has had many unfortunate consequences. It means we tend >> to see people as individuals with intrinsic characters rather than parts of >> a system, which causes us to blame them, often enough, for their suffering. >> It has blinded us to critical environmental interdependencies. It has led to >> the dominance of an impoverished reductionist account of the world that >> forecloses the possibility of a plurality of other rich epistemologies. I >> don't harbour too many illusions of changing the world, but those are the >> reasons I'm firing my arrow into the maelstrom. > > I do want a change in the world, like making theology back into science. We > see the obscurantism and the suffering which happens when we let this filed > in the hand of those who exploit it for their special interest. I want to > share the universal machine lesson in modesty. I want a better world for the > kids. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b159c47-cbdb-43d6-950e-173c06febd13%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b159c47-cbdb-43d6-950e-173c06febd13%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4109ca5-f538-49aa-b9fe-628e3c528193%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4109ca5-f538-49aa-b9fe-628e3c528193%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/65AB9514-5A20-4902-84AA-F530EC1E483F%40ulb.ac.be.
