> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:15, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:04:55 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Jun 2019, at 13:15, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> The burden of proof always falls to those with extraordinary claims. No >> other scientists lay claim to the origins of reality. > > That was the subject debate by Plato and Aristotle. > > Aristotle made the extraordinary claim: there is a physical universe made of > primary matter, which was the false obvious fact precisely doubted by Plato. > There are never been any proof of this, nor even evidence. We, 20th century > human tends to take Aristotle theology for granted, but that is only an > habit, I would say. > > Any claim regarding the nature or origin of reality is extraordinary. Setting > up straw men living in the past does not accomplish much.
In Soccer term, all what I say is Plato 1 Aristotle zero. I don’t claim the match was the last one. We need to go back to the ancient, because they did an hard work, which has been hidden by the argument of authority when the christian religion begun to be radical, around +500). (The same thing happened in Islam after 1248. The “Philosophers” (those who estimates that the Text must be submitted to Reason, like Averroes) lost the battle against those who estimated that Reason must submit itself to the text, which arguably a blasphemy in the theology of the universal machine. The god/non-God debate is like a fake debate among Aristotelians (believer in Matter) to make us forget that the origin debate was about the existence of Matter (with the big M, to mean some ontologically primitive matter). > > > > > > >> The default position is that it is unclear or that we haven't advanced far >> enough. > > > I would say that we have regressed a lot on this domain, since theology has > been separated from science. > > > Then move to ancient Greece and see if their doctors and medicines inspire > more confidence and good faith! lol Of course! They were rationalist, they did not prohibited cannabis! They were honest seeker of truth. They have been the victims of inquisition and of all form of radicalism, like today. Probably not as gifted as us for the cataract eye operation, but all in all, those people were searching truth, not trying to hide it, like the fashion today. > > > >> So that extraordinary claim calls for extraordinary - even immaculate - sort >> of evidence. Who knows how the problem could be posed and what powerful >> machines or new mathematics we could invent? That's being open to change our >> mind... keep working at it. > > The best way to be able to change our mind, is by making theory precise > enough so that we can test it, and up to now, the evidences back up Mechanism. > > Without precision on said testability, it remains speculative philosophy > though. But the precision are there, and can be improved. It is not just a theory, it is an attitude toward machines, we can listen to them right now on the fundamental question. The only problem is that today, to really get the point, you need to study theoretical computer science, which is not well taught, if taught at all. > > > > >> >> It is one of the reason to call it theology: we need some amount of fait to >> say “yes” to the doctor, and we cannot impose the Mechanist practice to >> others (with the inevitable complex question of how to decide for kids, >> etc.). >> >> >> >> Expressing something linguistically - all intentions aside - always >> "imposes". That's the nature of language and discourse. It's up to folks to >> use this power responsibly or fail at survival at some point. > > That is why I insist so much that Mechanism is an hypothesis (aka belief, > axioms, postulate). That is why I am almost boring by repeating all the time: > If mechanism is true then … > > Repeating that endlessly will not change a thing. It is the KEY point. My opponent want that people believe that I claim some truth, like in continental philosophy. The whole point is that I do not claim any truth. I use Church thesis to make a philosophical/theological thesis amenable to mathematics. I reduce a theological problem, in a precise theoretical frame, into a mathematical problem. With mechanism, I illustrate that we can work in philosophy with the scientific attitude. I show Mechanism to be testable, and tested a priori as it provides a new interrelation of what is matter and why it behaves in this quantum way. I have no problem with scientists, just with philosophers, which show their usual repugnance when scientists works in their field. It is always the same story. > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> And while I may have been critical and harsh these past years, I have no >>> issue with your person and/or your work. Your discourse assumes notions >>> who's existential status/tractability remains unclear at this time. >> >> >> I assume Digital Mechanism. Then I prove that physics has to be like QM has >> already illustrated. QM is basically incomprehensible today, and the fault >> is the Aristotelian belief in (boolean or not) independent substances. >> >> >> I'm not sure for above reasons: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary >> evidence > > But extraordinary is subjective. The most extraordinary claim is that a > physical universe exist primitively. There are zero reason to believe this. > No one doubt that there is a physical reality, but why should it be primitive? > > Nobody is claiming that it should! You need folks to claim something they > don't, to set up your discourse. But without means to test... > > > In science, we simply try to avoid committing oneself ontologically. No > physicists do that. But physicalist do it, and they use often Mechanism > implicitly, to avoid the mind-body problem. But once you grasp that 2+2=4 > entails the existence of all computations, even without mechanism, that gives > a reason to doubt the necessity of assuming a primitively physical universe. > > > Every court of law dealing with some appeal already doubts some primitively > assumed account of facts, status of materials, agents disagreeing about > platonic abstractions such as money etc. People already choose platonism on > their own. Take family bonds or love as other examples. It may be > incompatible propositionally, but this hard split between materialists and > immaterialists is something I find myself less and less convinced by, as the > discussions progress over the years. > > > >> and since that isn't obtainable now believing in independent substances >> cannot be considered a crime or sin against science. > > Of course. It is only an inconsistent belief for those who are willing to say > “yes” to a digitalist brain surgeon. > > > If mechanism were itself testable. The whole point is that it is testable, and tested very well up to now, at a place were physicalists has not yet a theory (but two confilicing theories, and non try to handle the mind-body problem, with a list of exceptions though) > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> Therefore assuming "comp" or "mechanism" to be absolutely clear and >>> established beyond doubt is premature. >> >> That will never happen. Xe cannot prove anything about “reality”, not even >> that there is one. >> >> We can know consciousness, but still not prove it. >> >> Many people believe that mechanism and materialism go hand in hand, where I >> show them incompatible, and then, thanks to QM, the experimental facts sides >> with mechanism, against materialism. But that can change tomorrow, or in >> billions years. >> >> This is where your discourse has merit: where, how, why those facts >> side/support mechanism and our ability or lack thereof to test the thing. >> The nested boxes of Bell you came up with with Eric Vandenbussche: are we >> sure that Telmo or Russell can't get their hands on a machine powerful >> enough to muscle. Why not try? Telmo's Biceps are most certainly huge by >> now, right? Perhaps with a powerful enough machines today and Goldblatt >> tattooed on his biceps, the world or the machine will see the light! lol > > > Eric Vandenbuscche was indeed working on how to optimise G*. But it is > advanced mathematical logic, computer science, etc. Not that easy. Eric died > and was unable to accomplish this work. > > That work should be made accessible to any parties interested. And if we're > organized enough there should be accessible paths for beginners! Otherwise > it's a fail pedagogically and any possible good work is done in vain. And if > there is no route to testability that is accessible then those cards should > be on the table. It is testable, and tested retroactively up to now, like String theory, somehow, but string theory does not tackle the mind-body problem. I am not sure what you are missing, ask any (specific) question. Bruno > > > > >> >> >> I do not defend the idea that Mechanism is true, only that it is >> incompatible with (Weak) Materialism, and that the empirical facts side with >> Mechanism, until now. >> >> Again: that burden of proof has to be extraordinary or the metaphysics has >> to be extraordinary. Before that happens, we're speculating in mathematical >> or philosophy of science realms. > > I don’t speculate. > > Without more concrete tests, that point remains debatable. > > Most people believe in mechanism today (even some who claim the contrary. I > use Mechanism in the weaker sense that most of its use.And many people are > just wrong on this, as they believe that mechanism is compatible with > materialism. That has been proved impossible, which makes some dogmatic > materialist angry. > > I'm interested in the non-dogmatic court and management/separation of powers > with the capacity to approach abolishing crimes and abuse, because diverse > possibility and distribution of power is more fun than deserts and dogmas of > monotonous force with leaders/authorities holier than the rest of us. Crimes > seem an excuse to fuel our toxic addiction to authority figures, prisons, > paramilitary police and intelligence force etc. coupled with laziness towards > the problem of evil and enforcement questions. I don't see why we principally > have the need for any of those things, which is why I'm interested in less > specified pluralisms and conflicts of say benevolence towards all life with > empathy, care for individuals, security etc. If some ontology can address > those kinds of problems, then I'm interested beyond testability. PGC > > > -- > 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/68d061a8-b157-4649-8ec7-69e72ca46498%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/68d061a8-b157-4649-8ec7-69e72ca46498%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/7A2C5104-25E7-48DE-8838-732896744DD2%40ulb.ac.be.
