On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> I need a formula, and means to test it experimentally. Just to make some >> sense, and compare with the consequence of Mechanism. >> >> If you disagree with the proof of the incompatibility of Mechanism and >> (weak) Materialism, it would be nice to explain why. >> > > "Mechanism" is not refutable. > > > Digital Mechanism is not refutable by introspection. But as it implies > that physics, and notably the logic of the observable obeys some logics > (indeed some quantum logic), it can be refuted (or judged less plausible) > by comparing the physical principles extracted from Mechanism with the > observation. Up to now, thanks to the “quantum weirdness” and its > “many-histories” interpretation, Mechanism fits with the observation. > > Retrodiction plus the usual oversimplification. What a surprise.
A historically nuanced view encompassing developments in all supposed fields up to the present day, which conveniently don't include philosophical (assemble Greek scholars for your interpretations and cite them, if you hold yours truly to be wrong), metaphysical, literal, and aesthetic developments - "mechanism fitting with observation" is an unclear aesthetic/personal standard of evidence - and would never pass any university department/academic panel worth its salt. Anybody with even an inclination of the complexity involved in the sweeping generality of the claims purporting to explain the origin of physical laws, reality, existence etc. - even a failed literature bachelor - would red flag the ubiquitous truth assignments, the lack of verifiability, and ask for extraordinary amounts - and measures of proof along with consequences of an alleged metaphysics. Results. Not non-results, particularly as semantically, the whole enterprise can be interpreted as anti-scientific, as well as a confidence trick. Technically, it might have passed in isolated, less rigorous settings in the past. But ethically, philosophically, linguistically, metaphysically, physically? Today, in 2019? Sorry, but folks would laugh at the coarse takeover attempt of the scientific enterprise with such an innocent, personalized conception of evidence, science etc. They'd ask to be shown the goods and your non-answer is clear. An infinite amount of posting/explanation won't change it. Science is a "show me" kind of enterprise. You overrate explanations and excuses. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c25422c7-f0b9-4148-a750-6b6cc4f0e1f5%40googlegroups.com.
