On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:01 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> 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 > Well said, PGC. I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't have said it half as well. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq_LxK0ABx5Ei%3D4qFdLLuEyAb_gAV76HtNBq%2Bvb2Jjmw%40mail.gmail.com.
