Bravo PGC. Very Well Said. Delusions of reality as based in a purely mathematical scheme will never amount to a "theory of everything..."
Just another quaint, historically bounded, and deeply ontologically committed idea with absolutely no practical relevance, much like Thales' commitment that "all is water" or Anaximander's idea of the "apeiron" as a metaphysical absolute. Sounds great on paper... try to do something with it... well, that's a Turing TarPit right there. And just a further comment to Bruno's constant use of "Aristotelian assumption" of "primary matter." Can I have primary source citation, please? From what I recall of my Aristotle, a fair bit of it, I can't even once remember him talking about "matter" in the ordinary, "post-Cartesian" sense of the term. And you know why? Because he didn't have that distinction in his lexicon!!! In his metaphysics, he talks of "particulars," not "matter" per se, unless you think this is based on his idea of one of the four forms of causation. And he argued that all four need to be present before a thing comes to be (efficient, formal, teleological, final). Nowhere does he mention the very modern (i.e. post-Descartes) idea of "matter" in this metaphysic. Please defend your claims philologically, and not by way of obscure mathematical formula supposedly designed to lead us to some sort of ultimate Platonic conclusion. And also not by way of convenient redefinitions of common words (God, matter, machine) that leave most people in a dust of confusion. (but maybe that's your intent?) I can already feel you writing... "but the hypothesis of mechanism dictates that ... x must be y.... " ... "numbers must have dreams, and they must be us... " the hypostases of the ultimate one talked about by plotinus (which numbered 8) must be the only way if we assume mechanism... " ENOUGH! Your rhetoric and constant pompous references to your previous posts have chased many great minds away from this list. (Craig Weinberg comes to mind.) And I mostly come here to see John Clark constantly body slam you with respect to the question of hardware implementation of computations... which you never answer... like a true cultist... "Go back to step 3" -- fuck step three. There are no matter duplicating machines. There is no "absolute first person perspective"... referred to by a pronoun "I". And even if there were a matter duplicating machine, it would have to be made of "matter" (pace John Clark) and so couldn't simply just happen by virtue of the mathematical formalism. (Remember Pythagoras? See where he ended up? Not because what he said was true... because it was ANNOYINGLY FALSE) Therefore, your mind experiment is done as far as practical consequences. So what? Who cares? What are we even doing here? God bless John Clark for fighting this nonsense. Remember what this list was meant to do -- CULTIVATE THEORIES OF EVERYTHING... NOT "Cultivate what conforms to Bruno's idea of a Theory of Everything Is." And, please, no disrepect to any of the other participants on this thread. I have followed you all for so long (10+) years that you are all family (including Bruno, you silly bastard) I love the salutary conclusions that seem to emerge from your speculations, Bruno, I really do... but so much effort has been dedicated to trying to make you see that you have blindspots (Brent Meeker, John Clark, Craig Weinberg) and you never modify your theory to cover them, you only insist that they don't understand your genius plan. Let me ask you: if you are the only car traveling in a certain direction (let's call it North) and you encounter multiple cars traveling at other directions (namely, South), are the other guys driving in the wrong direction? Or are you? And before anyone charges me of just dropping in uninvited, my claimed 10+ years experience a lie, I have posted here before, in different guises. I'll leave it up to the readers (if they're interested) in figuring out who I am. Doesn't matter now, though, my anonymity is blown. Please be kind (or not, this is the internet, after all...) Anyway, I found it irresistible to drop in and let you all know I love you all and this forum, and Bruno too for being so god damned STUBBORN!! But it's looking like you might need to re evaluate some stuff? Go ahead, cut me up in the comments... On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:06:10 AM UTC-5, PGC wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 9:58:31 AM UTC+2, telmo wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I don’t understand well what you say. >> >> >> Nobody, including yourself, understands what you say generally. >> >> >> >> Just tell me what you don’t understand specifically, and avoid ad hominem >> attack. It bores everybody, and distract from the thread. >> >> >> That is just bullying, Bruno. You accuse everyone who disagrees with you >> of ad hominem attacks. >> >> >> That is a lie and you know it. >> > > All of us can read. I saw the ad hominem remark applied to Bruce's posts > by Bruno multiple times. Read what Bruno said: "Just tell me what you > don’t understand specifically, and avoid ad hominem attack. It bores > everybody, and distract from the thread." He admits to not understanding > and then assumes authority and my consent to solicit his advice as some > high priest of theories of everything. You approach someone like that in > the real world, them always forcing their game on you, anybody with > self-respect would tell him to take a hike: I don't buy high priest > discourse and refuse to participate in folks' delusions of themselves. > That's the ad hominem. > > >> And you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. I challenge you to >> find one instance on this mailing list where Bruno accused anyone of ad >> hominem without having been directed insulted: "pee pee theories", "you >> don't make sense", "nobody knows what you're talking about", etc etc. I >> know you won't produce this example because it doesn't exist, and I also >> know that you will just avoid the topic and focus on the next insult / >> patronizing comment. >> >> Well, I have been participating in this mailing list on and off for more >> than one decade, and more or less the only original ideas being discussed >> here come from Bruno. I have witnessed multi-year threads discussing what >> he is saying in great detail, so clearly some people must have some idea of >> what he is saying. >> > > Interpersonal discourse is never this simple. On an open list you guys > whine about dissent while lamenting lack of loyalty to Bruno for having > "more or less the only original ideas here". That insults every participant > including those of us who've found their way here without agendas of > grooming followers into some professorial trip of personal mysticism > presented as truth writ large. > > As if the list existed only in virtue of Bruno's generosity towards lesser > people. I disagree because I've seen original thought from Telmo and most > participants, while seeing the list as a place for folks to practice and > enjoy banter *with disagreement and dissent* on theoretical/scientific > topics. > > What this conspiracy type arguing performs discursively: Of course, > targets for confidence tricks and conspiratorial discourse have blind faith > in "debate/discourse" of their guru. Targets of such discourse are always > framed as experts on the correct side of a victimized history. That's the > poisonous reward: compensation at some later point, which is similar to the > afterlife promise from any exploitative discourse. Cult charlatan territory > is what this discourse toys with. In an age of disinformation you don't > cede to believing what you read. You criticize or leave. > > No need to worry because nobody's here for your loyalty. You can keep > sipping the kool aid of choice from the one guru of pure mathematical > truth, originality, and perfection. Nobody will take that away from you > because what's left to take? You've already given it all away. Including in > recent weeks admitting to replacing notions of evidence with emotional > appeals to the "correct, truthful attitude" along with disqualifying your > and other members' own originality here today. Bruno's originality? I > interpret history independently and see no evidence beyond speculative > mathematical philosophy and a combinator result. Duplicating, machines, > quantum logic, immortality all standard stuff with a few precisions on > details. But original? Read more and at least try to test your own > assertions. There's not much here and everybody here can do better. > > As if Bruno's approaches were the only thing under the sun. Get out there, > question everything, and get after things. Don't believe what you read but > read more outside zones of comfort. Do your thing. Read other things than > internet chat! If you want platonism as metaphysics, then go out and fight > in your local city councils and beyond. Realize your abilities to find and > rally more consensus for your cause, its implication to the world and other > people; and get out there. Instead his discourse in this setting implies > the pursuit of the right attitude by sitting on our butts, playing > professor uninvited, reading only his posts, the whole day splitting hairs > in forums instead of getting behind whatever you feel strongly about and > reaching out to the world. > > Don't talk to me about debating issues: debating for what? Aristotle's > alleged "physicalism" on which so much of the "debates" with John are > linguistically based, enjoys no scientific consensus. Matter with Aristotle > is an unclear and inconsistent notion throughout Aristotle's writings. > Folks should justifiably be irritated when being sold such a bill of goods. > All except the credulous of course. Forcing incompleteness to mean "soul" > in the Christian sense, immunity from reductionism while uttering > statements about gods and their wills with assumed scientific authority, > admitting that nobody can make such statements while making them > constantly, blasting the list with truth assertions day in and day out. > > "I don't truth you so you don't truth me" somebody quoted in recent > weeks. Rightfully so because its insulting and rude: how stupid does he > assume list members to be? That's not original thought, it's synonymous > with confidence tricks for credibility in linguistic terms. Robbery with > rhetorical tricks. Scientific contributions on the other hand are what they > are: contributions, not statements of truth or some correct metaphysics or > attitude. The humility he admonishes everybody for not having: a double > standard by his own discursive measures. > > And I'll counter the "boring" argument as poor aesthetics from folks > outside their fields. Theoretical topics and their discussion can be > abused. To deny the possibility of such is too innocent for you guys. It > belongs on the agenda if this list is public and free. > > >> Maybe the limitation is on your side? >> >> You insist on rigor when you talk to Bruno (as you should), and then you >> side with someone who produced exactly zero arguments, that writes long and >> incoherent rants >> > > Who rants the most here? Who has the time for the highest number and > longest posts? Who writes as though they had to correct every thought and > split every hair with other members? > > >> that aim only at insulting Bruno for personal reasons. Unlike John Clark >> for example. Say what you will, but I have never seen John Clark side with >> bullshit just because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Give me a break >> here. You are about as far from having a scientific attitude as I am from >> becoming the next Miss Universe. >> > > You are right. Miss Universe is at least expected to have a brain of her > own and answer questions her own way! > > On an open list everybody's opinions matter, just like in democracy. Deal > with it or whine and practice conspiratorial discourses in private. No buy. > Not interested. Be as polite as you say you are instead of unleashing > motherly assaults, theological rants on ideal attitudes, when folks are > skeptical on matters religion and theology or employing bizarre rhetorical > tricks dismissing alleged statements as physicalist and stupid. We're > people beyond ideologies. Not reducible to written statements on chat > forums as virtually all this discourse assumes. Chat fundamentalism. > Immunity from reductionism? Lol > > The woo woo is decadence. Show me instead. I show what I parse to be > discursive intent because that's what interests me with science: what do > you mean? what kind of world does that paint? Is it beautiful? Is it joyous > or are you just getting off on posting in public? Independent, no side for > me. Salt for everyone. 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/1c3c5f2f-a009-4f96-bfaa-5c67e0cb1825%40googlegroups.com.
