On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jul 2019, at 15:01, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> 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. > > > I don’t understand well what you say. >
Nobody, including yourself, understands what you say generally. It changes every week to accommodate the latest discourse. The whole discursive setup you practice here, with transparent ideological vilification of alleged physicalists and victimization of some allegedly holy platonic side depends on one thing: distance. At least a perceived distance. It depends on people not knowing each other and therefore on folks willing to fear and blame each other because your discourse isn't informed to the contrary. That's a highly warped and sad, cynical view of the world. I hope you do better for yourself and those around you. You're being dismissive to the world + yourself: Who questions peoples’ alleged attachments to “Aristotle hypothesis” or whatever the flavor of the week or month is? Who assumes themselves to have a mandate to interfere in how other people parse reality? Who tries to force everybody's discourse into their own interpretations without asking? I'm telling you for years: it's rude. Quit the games. Respect people along with yourself. You care about your work? Then work on building consensus - listen and read others as equals - instead of trying to conquer discourse. Folks that force their topics and interpretations each and every chance they get lack good faith in others and themselves. The hyper polite humble non-aggressive style doesn't fool anybody. The academic "with mechanism - we xyz blah blah" => there is no "we" or "mechanism" with your monologues of some entitled feeling leader and agreements from a few credulous minions. Everybody knows that violence can be hidden in the most neutral, non-aggressive discourse. Do yourself the favor of being you, instead of the muppet of some alleged platonism. Stop robbing time from yourself and members of this list with this kind of discourse. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63aab716-bef0-48fb-a358-4ddaa289840f%40googlegroups.com.
