On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:32:28 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Sep 2019, at 23:21, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 12:10:00 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 21 Sep 2019, at 14:35, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:28:17 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:21 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've just finished Sean Carroll's new book "Something Deeply Hidden" >>>>> and I thought it was excellent, it makes the strongest case I've seen >>>>> for >>>>> the Many World's view of Quantum Mechanics. >>>>> John K Clark >>>>> >>>> >>>> *> Did he cover the hubris factor? * >>>> >>> >>> Why don't you read the book and then you can tell me? And you can also >>> tell me if you still think the man is in "mental decline". >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> Voit said the inner content of the book is fairly well reasoned, but the >> cover and press coverage BY Carroll, fortifies the quantum myth about MW. >> And Yes, he's definitely in mental decline regardless of some of the >> clarity of his quantum presentation. Just toss out the Schroedinger >> equation after the measurement and you will have peace of mind. AG >> >> >> >> That is equivalent to accept the theory where it please, and to discard >> its consequences where it is unpleasant. That is a form of instrumentalist >> wishful thinking, which cannot help to improve the theories. >> >> Better accept the consequences, and if you can refute the theory >> properly, then we can progress. If not we run toward the catastrophes. >> >> In the 1930s, many germans have voted for Hitler, despite they were >> sincerely shocked by its racisme and antisemtisme, but then he was so >> promising for redressing the economy. The demagogs exploit that type of >> wishful thinking. >> >> It is the same in metaphysics and physics. You need to be consistent with >> your own theories, or you get pseudo-religions and the useless suffering >> which go with it. >> >> Bruno >> > > > You're the one who defacto engages in pseudo religion, > > > Where? > > aka defacto Platonism. > > On the contrary, I extract the machine theology from what the machine already tell us, even if that needs today some study of mathematical logic.
*IMO, mechanism is generally accepted among physicists today, as well as many philosophers; namely, that consciousness is a property of, and depends on brain and nervous system. Most would say NO to the doctor since they're not convinced we know enough to fully replace our brain and nervous system with computer chips, and there remains a haunting doubt that computations are all there is to it; namely, consciousness. IOW, despite the general belief in mechanism, a healthy skepticism remains. AG* > You can't prove that arithmetic is independent of the physical world, (AG) > > The proposition is, if you don’t mind, ridiculous. > *I corrected my prior comment, somewhere, in some relavant thread. Agreed; one cannot "prove" that arithmetic is logically prior to the physical world. However, one can assume it -- which you do, and this IMO constitutes your religious type belief insofar as it seems unshakeable. AG* > Where do you see a physical assumption in the axioms I have given. > *You assume computations can discover physical laws, as if computations alone can supplant the scientific method. See comment below. AG* > There are none. No need of metaphysics, nor physics, to learn how to add > and multiply, which is all what we needed, except for the induction axiom, > but this one is already put in the phenomenology. > > The only problem is if you claim that 2+2 is different of 4, which I hope > you don’t. > > and you even go so far as to deny other worlds, relying on word games such > as other BRANCHES. > > I am a scientist. I prefer to not add hypotheses unless they are needed. > Then I *prove* that you cannot use an ontological universe to explain the > appearance of a physical universe, once you work with the Digital Mechanist > hypothesis. It is my working hypothesis. I am agnostic on it, but > interested in studying its consequence, and testing them. > > If they're just branches and not "worlds", then Carroll is sorely > mistaken, a fact you cannot see due to your religious beliefs. AG > > > All my beliefs are presented as refutable hypothesis, and I never claim if > they are true or false. > *IMO, you DO claim as "true" that arithmetic and computations are the ontological foundations and precursors for what appears as an external world. I'm doubtful of that because I can easily construct the axioms of arithmetic by observations of the external world. And I find your reliance on computations unsatisfactory. Specifically, if a monkey can type the complete works of Isaac Newton, does this constitute "discovery" of any physical laws? What about the interplay of theory and observations, aka the scientific method, to establish the relative truth of Newton's theory of gravity? Can a computer or computations do that? I have grave doubts. AG* > But some people here talk like if they know the truth, so much that they > dare to mock conclusion only because they hurt their conclusion, and this > without studying the reasoning, or dismissing step with infinite word-game. > > If you know that some world exist in some ontological primary way, then > you are the guy doing pseudo-religion or if you prefer pseudo-science I’m > afraid. > *I do not necessarily assume the externally appearing physical universe is ontologically prior to anything. I am open to a deeper understanding. But as I wrote above, I am hugely skeptical that arithmetic is the culprit, that is, the defacto creator of our physical universe. AG* Bruno > > > > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ead48c9-398b-496d-b21e-85463349ad48%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ead48c9-398b-496d-b21e-85463349ad48%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/6bd48349-4b88-4083-9751-364caed64241%40googlegroups.com.
