subject:"The Man Behind The Curtain"

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Jul 2011, at 14:47, B Soroud wrote:

well honestly, this is a extremely foreign view then the one I'm use  
to


You mean that you believe we are not Turing emulable. That is quite  
sci. fi. But why not. Then what is your theory of mind?




very sci fi seeming


I am not sure what is sc. fi. Mechanism is virtually believed by all  
scientists (more or less explicitly so).
Then it is a matter of understanding a reasoning to see that it leads  
to a platonic conception of reality.

The proof is constructive.

I use the thought experiment of teleportation to ease the thing. At  
the step seven and eight the practicalness of teleportation is  
entirely eliminated.


So there is no 'speculation' (just a theory). If there is no flaw in  
the reasoning, then we have to learn to live with that. Like we have  
to accept that there is no numbers such that their ratio is the square- 
root of 2.


Is it so extraordinary to find a flaw in Aristotle conception of  
matter? Is not such conception an obvious extrapolation from local  
observation? As far as I know, nobody has given an evidence that  
fundamental (primitive matter) does exist. So what?


I am not sure you have tried to study the proof or argument. You must  
dispute the validity of the reasoning, only. I mean if you have an  
interest in fundamental question.


Bruno





 but interesting and worthy of exploration none the less.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime
matter that you're skeptical of.

It is the idea that there is a fundamental reality made of some  
stuff having some fundamental ontology. It is mainly the primary  
matter as introduced by Aristotle. This has led to materialism/ 
naturalism/physicalism, which is the idea that physics is the  
fundamental science, and matter-spece-time-energy the fundamental  
existant.
For the platonists, what we see and observe might be the shadow of a  
deeper, non necessarily physical, reality, so that physics would not  
be a fundamental science, but could be retrieved from a simpler  
theory. Indeed with comp, physics can be retrieved from addition and  
multiplication (and since Gödel, we know that addition and  
multiplication are not that easy).


I might refer you to my sane04 paper(*) where I explain in english,  
and rather shortly, why, once we assume mechanism (digital  
mechanism) then it has to be necessarily like that (some use of  
Occam, or some nuances can be added, 'course). The physical science  
are given by what is invariant in all possible universal number's  
observation. This can already be shown to lead to quantum logic. In  
fact most of the quantum weirdness are simple consequence of the  
digital mechanist hypothesis, but the math shows that the whole of  
quantum mechanics (including relativity) has to be retrieved from  
computer science/number theory.


If you are interested, ask any question. By construction, the  
argument is accessible to any Löbian numbers, (as explained in the  
second part of the sane04 paper). Even if comp is false, I can  
explain that *you* are at least a Löbian number (comp is basically  
the statement that you are not MORE than a Löbian number).  
Basically, a Löbian number is a code of a universal machine which  
knows (in a weak technical sense) that she is a universal machine.  
The theory "Peano Arithmetic" is already a Löbian number.


I have gone a little deeper, here, but I can go much more deeper.  
Obviously it is hard to sum this difficult subject with few words.  
Computationalism makes possible to use computer science in the  
cognitive fundamental science/philosophy.


Bruno


(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html



On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:

Bruno,

"It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If
not you fall in solipsism."

This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by
point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate
from us people always make this mistake we are reality, we
are a part of reality, and our experiences are perception dependent,
in some naive and rudimentary sense, and our experience is
physiologically, environmentally and conceptually conditioned,
always...

That is coherent with what I said.

reality is a word that is losing much meaning for me nowadays

But this does not follow.



and as in response to the "we" it is in the old Augustinean
sense where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know
what it is

That is the 1-person (even the singular 1-person). It is not really a
we. For a we, you need to already bet on a reality with other people.



final quesiton has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am
starting to think that that is important to do and

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread B Soroud

well honestly, this is a extremely foreign view then the one I'm use to
very sci fi seeming but interesting and worthy of exploration none the
less.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
>  Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime
>> matter that you're skeptical of.
>>
>
> It is the idea that there is a fundamental reality made of some stuff
> having some fundamental ontology. It is mainly the primary matter as
> introduced by Aristotle. This has led to materialism/naturalism/**physicalism,
> which is the idea that physics is the fundamental science, and
> matter-spece-time-energy the fundamental existant.
> For the platonists, what we see and observe might be the shadow of a
> deeper, non necessarily physical, reality, so that physics would not be a
> fundamental science, but could be retrieved from a simpler theory. Indeed
> with comp, physics can be retrieved from addition and multiplication (and
> since Gödel, we know that addition and multiplication are not that easy).
>
> I might refer you to my sane04 paper(*) where I explain in english, and
> rather shortly, why, once we assume mechanism (digital mechanism) then it
> has to be necessarily like that (some use of Occam, or some nuances can be
> added, 'course). The physical science are given by what is invariant in all
> possible universal number's observation. This can already be shown to lead
> to quantum logic. In fact most of the quantum weirdness are simple
> consequence of the digital mechanist hypothesis, but the math shows that the
> whole of quantum mechanics (including relativity) has to be retrieved from
> computer science/number theory.
>
> If you are interested, ask any question. By construction, the argument is
> accessible to any Löbian numbers, (as explained in the second part of the
> sane04 paper). Even if comp is false, I can explain that *you* are at least
> a Löbian number (comp is basically the statement that you are not MORE than
> a Löbian number). Basically, a Löbian number is a code of a universal
> machine which knows (in a weak technical sense) that she is a universal
> machine. The theory "Peano Arithmetic" is already a Löbian number.
>
> I have gone a little deeper, here, but I can go much more deeper. Obviously
> it is hard to sum this difficult subject with few words. Computationalism
> makes possible to use computer science in the cognitive fundamental
> science/philosophy.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/publications/**
> SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:
>>>
>>>  Bruno,

>>>
>>>  "It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If
 not you fall in solipsism."

>>>
>>>  This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by
 point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate
 from us people always make this mistake we are reality, we
 are a part of reality, and our experiences are perception dependent,
 in some naive and rudimentary sense, and our experience is
 physiologically, environmentally and conceptually conditioned,
 always...

>>>
>>> That is coherent with what I said.
>>>
>>>  reality is a word that is losing much meaning for me nowadays

>>>
>>> But this does not follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  and as in response to the "we" it is in the old Augustinean
 sense where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know
 what it is

>>>
>>> That is the 1-person (even the singular 1-person). It is not really a
>>> we. For a we, you need to already bet on a reality with other people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  final quesiton has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am
 starting to think that that is important to do and I'm getting
 ready to take it up.

>>>
>>> You might try to make a summary. I find it rather obscure, but
>>> frequently some people find the universal numlber's discourse rather
>>> Hegelian. I am not sure because he seems to believe in a phenomenology
>>> of mind where I think we need a phenomenology of matter.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:

>>>
>>>  On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

>>>
>>>  "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
 that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "

>>>
>>>  who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?

>>>
>>>  We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption.

>>>
>>>  It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
 "reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
 and

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:


Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime
matter that you're skeptical of.


It is the idea that there is a fundamental reality made of some stuff  
having some fundamental ontology. It is mainly the primary matter as  
introduced by Aristotle. This has led to materialism/naturalism/ 
physicalism, which is the idea that physics is the fundamental  
science, and matter-spece-time-energy the fundamental existant.
For the platonists, what we see and observe might be the shadow of a  
deeper, non necessarily physical, reality, so that physics would not  
be a fundamental science, but could be retrieved from a simpler  
theory. Indeed with comp, physics can be retrieved from addition and  
multiplication (and since Gödel, we know that addition and  
multiplication are not that easy).


I might refer you to my sane04 paper(*) where I explain in english,  
and rather shortly, why, once we assume mechanism (digital mechanism)  
then it has to be necessarily like that (some use of Occam, or some  
nuances can be added, 'course). The physical science are given by what  
is invariant in all possible universal number's observation. This can  
already be shown to lead to quantum logic. In fact most of the quantum  
weirdness are simple consequence of the digital mechanist hypothesis,  
but the math shows that the whole of quantum mechanics (including  
relativity) has to be retrieved from computer science/number theory.


If you are interested, ask any question. By construction, the argument  
is accessible to any Löbian numbers, (as explained in the second part  
of the sane04 paper). Even if comp is false, I can explain that *you*  
are at least a Löbian number (comp is basically the statement that you  
are not MORE than a Löbian number). Basically, a Löbian number is a  
code of a universal machine which knows (in a weak technical sense)  
that she is a universal machine. The theory "Peano Arithmetic" is  
already a Löbian number.


I have gone a little deeper, here, but I can go much more deeper.  
Obviously it is hard to sum this difficult subject with few words.  
Computationalism makes possible to use computer science in the  
cognitive fundamental science/philosophy.


Bruno


(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html



On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:


Bruno,



"It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If
not you fall in solipsism."



This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by
point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate
from us people always make this mistake we are reality, we
are a part of reality, and our experiences are perception dependent,
in some naive and rudimentary sense, and our experience is
physiologically, environmentally and conceptually conditioned,
always...


That is coherent with what I said.


reality is a word that is losing much meaning for me nowadays


But this does not follow.




and as in response to the "we" it is in the old Augustinean
sense where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know
what it is


That is the 1-person (even the singular 1-person). It is not really a
we. For a we, you need to already bet on a reality with other people.




final quesiton has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am
starting to think that that is important to do and I'm getting
ready to take it up.


You might try to make a summary. I find it rather obscure, but
frequently some people find the universal numlber's discourse rather
Hegelian. I am not sure because he seems to believe in a  
phenomenology

of mind where I think we need a phenomenology of matter.

Bruno












On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal 
wrote:



On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:



"but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "



who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?



We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption.



It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
"reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical,  
elusive,

and complex as "god".



I appreciate this. That is why science is the best tool of the
serious theologian.



we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
an adequate glimpse of.



we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.


As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth  
and

reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
be highly overvalued.



What I try to explain is that if we assume that we are machine, then
we don't need more than (N, + *), ontologically.
In s

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread Constantine Pseudonymous

Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime
matter that you're skeptical of.

On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:
>
> > Bruno,
>
> > "It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If  
> > not you fall in solipsism."
>
> > This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by  
> > point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate  
> > from us people always make this mistake we are reality, we  
> > are a part of reality, and our experiences are perception dependent,  
> > in some naive and rudimentary sense, and our experience is  
> > physiologically, environmentally and conceptually conditioned,  
> > always...
>
> That is coherent with what I said.
>
> > reality is a word that is losing much meaning for me nowadays
>
> But this does not follow.
>
>
>
> > and as in response to the "we" it is in the old Augustinean  
> > sense where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know  
> > what it is
>
> That is the 1-person (even the singular 1-person). It is not really a  
> we. For a we, you need to already bet on a reality with other people.
>
>
>
> > final quesiton has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am  
> > starting to think that that is important to do and I'm getting  
> > ready to take it up.
>
> You might try to make a summary. I find it rather obscure, but  
> frequently some people find the universal numlber's discourse rather  
> Hegelian. I am not sure because he seems to believe in a phenomenology  
> of mind where I think we need a phenomenology of matter.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal   
> > wrote:
>
> > On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
> > "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
> > that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "
>
> > who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
>
> > We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption.
>
> > It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
> > "reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
> > and complex as "god".
>
> > I appreciate this. That is why science is the best tool of the  
> > serious theologian.
>
> > we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
> > an adequate glimpse of.
>
> > we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.
>
> > As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
> > reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
> > sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
> > be highly overvalued.
>
> > What I try to explain is that if we assume that we are machine, then  
> > we don't need more than (N, + *), ontologically.
> > In science we are always modest, and never know-for-sure if our  
> > theories are true. We can only hope to be refuted.
>
> > Science is not the truth per se. Science is doubt.
>
> > If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
> > essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
> > infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
> > "reality" is that?
>
> > It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If  
> > not you fall in solipsism.
>
> > I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
> > "systematic" sense.
>
> > Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality,
>
> > If we are machine, physics is not the royal road. But consciousness  
> > and numbers (or finite things) are, and then it can be shown how the  
> > physical realm emerge from the number, and this in a way which makes  
> > it testable. Science does not exist, but some human can develop a  
> > scientific attitude, which is a modest doubting skeptical ability  
> > which departs from the authoritative arguments.
> > Given than the most fundamental science (theology) is still in the  
> > hands of "authorities", and has still not yet come back in academy,  
> > we can say that science has not yet really begun. We have not yet  
> > the right to doubt in theology (be it the atheist theology, or the  
> > conventional theologies).
>
> > we
> > have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
> > and predefining notions of reality to begin with.
>
> > What do you mean by "we"? Is the term "we" used for the universal  
> > numbers, or we the mammals, or we the homeotherm animals, the  
> > creature of earth?, etc.
>
> > If we don't make theories, we cannot be shown wrong, and we cannot  
> > progress. Science is a path from doubts to even more doubts.
>
> > Bruno
>
> > On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen  wrote:
> > Instrumentalism, anyone?
>
> >http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.
> > 3,content
>
> > The range of phenome

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:


Bruno,

"It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If  
not you fall in solipsism."


This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by  
point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate  
from us people always make this mistake we are reality, we  
are a part of reality, and our experiences are perception dependent,  
in some naive and rudimentary sense, and our experience is  
physiologically, environmentally and conceptually conditioned,  
always...


That is coherent with what I said.




reality is a word that is losing much meaning for me nowadays


But this does not follow.




and as in response to the "we" it is in the old Augustinean  
sense where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know  
what it is


That is the 1-person (even the singular 1-person). It is not really a  
we. For a we, you need to already bet on a reality with other people.





final quesiton has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am  
starting to think that that is important to do and I'm getting  
ready to take it up.


You might try to make a summary. I find it rather obscure, but  
frequently some people find the universal numlber's discourse rather  
Hegelian. I am not sure because he seems to believe in a phenomenology  
of mind where I think we need a phenomenology of matter.


Bruno






On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

"but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "

who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?

We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption.





It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
"reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
and complex as "god".

I appreciate this. That is why science is the best tool of the  
serious theologian.







we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
an adequate glimpse of.

we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.

As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
be highly overvalued.

What I try to explain is that if we assume that we are machine, then  
we don't need more than (N, + *), ontologically.
In science we are always modest, and never know-for-sure if our  
theories are true. We can only hope to be refuted.


Science is not the truth per se. Science is doubt.






If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
"reality" is that?

It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If  
not you fall in solipsism.






I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
"systematic" sense.

Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality,

If we are machine, physics is not the royal road. But consciousness  
and numbers (or finite things) are, and then it can be shown how the  
physical realm emerge from the number, and this in a way which makes  
it testable. Science does not exist, but some human can develop a  
scientific attitude, which is a modest doubting skeptical ability  
which departs from the authoritative arguments.
Given than the most fundamental science (theology) is still in the  
hands of "authorities", and has still not yet come back in academy,  
we can say that science has not yet really begun. We have not yet  
the right to doubt in theology (be it the atheist theology, or the  
conventional theologies).






we
have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
and predefining notions of reality to begin with.

What do you mean by "we"? Is the term "we" used for the universal  
numbers, or we the mammals, or we the homeotherm animals, the  
creature of earth?, etc.


If we don't make theories, we cannot be shown wrong, and we cannot  
progress. Science is a path from doubts to even more doubts.


Bruno





On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen  wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no. 
3,content


The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
of co

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread B Soroud

Bruno,

"It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If not you
fall in solipsism."

This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by point,
but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate from us
people always make this mistake we are reality, we are a part of
reality, and our experiences are perception dependent, in some naive and
rudimentary sense, and our experience is physiologically, environmentally
and conceptually conditioned, always... reality is a word that is losing
much meaning for me nowadays

and as in response to the "we" it is in the old Augustinean sense
where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know what it is

final quesiton has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am starting
to think that that is important to do and I'm getting ready to take it
up.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
>  "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
>> that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "
>>
>> who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
>>
>
> We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption.
>
>
>
>
>
>> It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
>> "reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
>> and complex as "god".
>>
>
> I appreciate this. That is why science is the best tool of the serious
> theologian.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
>> an adequate glimpse of.
>>
>> we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.
>>
>> As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
>> reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
>> sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
>> be highly overvalued.
>>
>
> What I try to explain is that if we assume that we are machine, then we
> don't need more than (N, + *), ontologically.
> In science we are always modest, and never know-for-sure if our theories
> are true. We can only hope to be refuted.
>
> Science is not the truth per se. Science is doubt.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
>> essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
>> infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
>> "reality" is that?
>>
>
> It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If not you
> fall in solipsism.
>
>
>
>
>
>> I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
>> "systematic" sense.
>>
>> Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality,
>>
>
> If we are machine, physics is not the royal road. But consciousness and
> numbers (or finite things) are, and then it can be shown how the physical
> realm emerge from the number, and this in a way which makes it testable.
> Science does not exist, but some human can develop a scientific attitude,
> which is a modest doubting skeptical ability which departs from the
> authoritative arguments.
> Given than the most fundamental science (theology) is still in the hands of
> "authorities", and has still not yet come back in academy, we can say that
> science has not yet really begun. We have not yet the right to doubt in
> theology (be it the atheist theology, or the conventional theologies).
>
>
>
>
>
>  we
>> have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
>> and predefining notions of reality to begin with.
>>
>
> What do you mean by "we"? Is the term "we" used for the universal numbers,
> or we the mammals, or we the homeotherm animals, the creature of earth?,
> etc.
>
> If we don't make theories, we cannot be shown wrong, and we cannot
> progress. Science is a path from doubts to even more doubts.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> Instrumentalism, anyone?
>>>
>>> http://www.americanscientist.**org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.**
>>> 3,content..
>>> ..
>>>
>>> The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
>>> it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
>>> physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
>>> in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
>>> rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
>>> result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
>>> Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
>>> of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
>>> explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
>>> they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to a

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-07-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

"but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "

who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?

We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption.

It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
"reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
and complex as "god".

I appreciate this. That is why science is the best tool of the serious
theologian.

we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
an adequate glimpse of.

we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.

As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
be highly overvalued.

What I try to explain is that if we assume that we are machine, then
we don't need more than (N, + *), ontologically.
In science we are always modest, and never know-for-sure if our
theories are true. We can only hope to be refuted.

Science is not the truth per se. Science is doubt.

If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
"reality" is that?

It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If
not you fall in solipsism.

I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
"systematic" sense.

Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality,

If we are machine, physics is not the royal road. But consciousness
and numbers (or finite things) are, and then it can be shown how the
physical realm emerge from the number, and this in a way which makes
it testable. Science does not exist, but some human can develop a
scientific attitude, which is a modest doubting skeptical ability
which departs from the authoritative arguments.
Given than the most fundamental science (theology) is still in the
hands of "authorities", and has still not yet come back in academy, we
can say that science has not yet really begun. We have not yet the
right to doubt in theology (be it the atheist theology, or the
conventional theologies).

we
have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
and predefining notions of reality to begin with.

What do you mean by "we"? Is the term "we" used for the universal
numbers, or we the mammals, or we the homeotherm animals, the creature
of earth?, etc.

If we don't make theories, we cannot be shown wrong, and we cannot
progress. Science is a path from doubts to even more doubts.

Bruno

On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen wrote:

Instrumentalism, anyone?

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.
3,content

in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.

[...]

received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further
than

other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
confuse description with understanding.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-30 Thread meekerdb


On 6/30/2011 11:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

"but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "

who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?

It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
"reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
and complex as "god".

we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
an adequate glimpse of.

we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.

As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
reality,


There is no such thing as The Truth.  But there are some true sentences.


and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
be highly overvalued.

If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
"reality" is that?

I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
"systematic" sense.

Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality, we
have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
and predefining notions of reality to begin with.
   


I don't think anyone on this list is unaware of this.  We don't 
"presuppose" reality, we hypothesize it as an explanation of our 
intersubjective agreement about a very wide variety of perceptions which 
seem to be well predicted by various mathematical and other models.  We 
can never be sure that the ontology of our models represent the 
ding-an-sich.  But we can't be sure that they don't either; and in the 
meantime they represent our best guesses.  And models can be very useful 
even when false, as any engineer can attest.


Brent
"When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was 
every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have 
said that truth was a provisional reification of the most useful model."

   --- Anne O'Reilly

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-30 Thread Constantine Pseudonymous

nevertheless, you guys are brilliant and I'm glad to join the genuine
thinking. genuine thinking is the most radical activity on earth.

On Jun 30, 11:15 pm, Constantine Pseudonymous 
wrote:
> "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
> that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "
>
> who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
>
> It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
> "reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
> and complex as "god".
>
> we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
> an adequate glimpse of.
>
> we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.
>
> As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
> reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
> sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
> be highly overvalued.
>
> If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
> essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
> infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
> "reality" is that?
>
> I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
> "systematic" sense.
>
> Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality, we
> have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
> and predefining notions of reality to begin with.
>
> On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Instrumentalism, anyone?
>
> >http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content
>
> > The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
> > it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
> > physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
> > in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
> > rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
> > result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
> > Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
> > of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
> > explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
> > they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when
> > they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain.
> > Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as
> > received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
> > still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
> > of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
> > itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
> > not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than
> > other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
> > confuse description with understanding.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-30 Thread Constantine Pseudonymous

"but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "

who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?

It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
"reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
and complex as "god".

we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
an adequate glimpse of.

we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.

As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
be highly overvalued.

If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
infer a conception of it. what kind of conceptually conditioned
"reality" is that?

I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
"systematic" sense.

Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality, we
have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
and predefining notions of reality to begin with.

On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen  wrote:
> Instrumentalism, anyone?
>
> http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content
>
> The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
> it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
> physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
> in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
> rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
> result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
> Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
> of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
> explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
>
> [...]
>
> Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
> they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when
> they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain.
> Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as
> received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
> still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
> of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
> itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
> not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than
> other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
> confuse description with understanding.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-14 Thread Allen Rex

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> Instrumentalism, anyone?
>>
>
> I'll have a helping.  And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a pinch
> of common sense is as good as it gets.

Common sense?  What is this "common sense" that you speak of?

Let me guess:  "If you have to ask, you ain't ever gonna know."


It seems to me that this view of science, "instrumentalism with a
pinch of common sense", isn't the view that's generally presented to
the general public - or at least hasn't been in the past, though maybe
that's changing now.  It seems like you hear it more now than 15 years
ago, but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention then.

What impact do you think it would have if that were the public face of
science?  Positive?  Negative?  None?

It seems to me that it would be a big change - probably positive, but
who knows.

The mystery of consciousness takes on a bit of a different color when
set against an instrumentalist background though.


>> http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
>>
>> The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
>> it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
>> physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
>> in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
>> rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
>> result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
>> Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
>> of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
>> explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
>> they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when
>> they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain.
>> Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as
>> received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
>> still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
>> of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
>> itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
>> not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than
>> other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
>> confuse description with understanding.
>>
>>
>
> Confusing a good detailed, tested description with understanding is a lot
> better than confusing arm-chair philosophizing with understanding.

In either case, at the end of the story you're still confused.  But at
least in the latter case it ends with you sitting in a comfortable
arm-chair...


Rex

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-11 Thread Rex Allen

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2011, at 16:51, Rex Allen wrote:
>
>> Instrumentalism, anyone?
>
> It is not because a theology fails that we have to abandon all theologies.
> That would lead indeed to instrumentalism, and this would kill all
> inquiries. It leads to shut up and calculate.

I wouldn't think that this would necessarily be the case.  There's
always a demand for faster, more accurate ways to calculate.  Surely
that would be sufficient to drive progress.

Why bring theology and faith into it?

Maybe there's less fame and glory to be had in an instrumentalist approach?

Is realism in science driven by a desire for higher social status
amongst professional scientists?  Is that what stops them from more
aggressively promoting the "instrumentalism with a pinch of common
sense" view of science?

Robin Hanson should be all over this.

Rex

"There is no quantum world.  There is only an abstract quantum
description.  It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find
out how nature is.  Physics concerns what we can say about nature."
-- Niels Bohr

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-11 Thread Rex Allen

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> Instrumentalism, anyone?
>>
>
> I'll have a helping.  And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a pinch
> of common sense is as good as it gets.

Common sense?  What is this "common sense" that you speak of?

Let me guess:  "If you have to ask, you ain't ever gonna know."


It seems to me that this view of science, "instrumentalism with a
pinch of common sense", isn't the view that's generally presented to
the general public - or at least hasn't been in the past, though maybe
that's changing now.  It seems like you hear it more now than 15 years
ago, but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention then.

What impact do you think it would have if that were the public face of
science?  Positive?  Negative?  None?

It seems to me that it would be a big change - probably positive, but
who knows.

The mystery of consciousness takes on a bit of a different color when
set against an instrumentalist background though.


>> http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
>>
>> The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
>> it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
>> physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
>> in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
>> rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
>> result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
>> Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
>> of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
>> explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
>> they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when
>> they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain.
>> Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as
>> received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
>> still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
>> of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
>> itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
>> not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than
>> other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
>> confuse description with understanding.
>>
>>
>
> Confusing a good detailed, tested description with understanding is a lot
> better than confusing arm-chair philosophizing with understanding.

In either case, at the end of the story you're still confused.  But at
least in the latter case it ends with you sitting in a comfortable
arm-chair...


Rex

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-11 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 11 Jun 2011, at 16:51, Rex Allen wrote:

Instrumentalism, anyone?

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.

[...]

Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when
they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain.
Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as
received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than
other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
confuse description with understanding.

It is not because a theology fails that we have to abandon all
theologies. That would lead indeed to instrumentalism, and this would
kill all inquiries. It leads to shut up and calculate.

Science just asks question. We can only bet on answers and correct
them, in all fields.

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-11 Thread meekerdb

On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:

Instrumentalism, anyone?

I'll have a helping. And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a
pinch of common sense is as good as it gets.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

[...]

Confusing a good detailed, tested description with understanding is a
lot better than confusing arm-chair philosophizing with understanding.

Brent

The Man Behind The Curtain

2011-06-11 Thread Rex Allen

Instrumentalism, anyone?

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

[...]

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

Re: The Man Behind The Curtain

The Man Behind The Curtain

16 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information