On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
<snip>
It is like a dream, or a simulation implemented on the real
physics.
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true.
So if you extract "F= KmM/r^2" from comp, and you refute it
ostensibly (by flying) then you can infer that either comp is
false, or you are dreaming (or you are in a simulation, done,
not by the UD, but implemented on the real physics which is not
done by the UD but supervenes on the whole UD in a non
computable).
You are right that we don't test just comp, but comp +
theaetetus + we are at the base level of physics (not dreaming
or simulated at a higher level). OK? (I think se have
discussed this before, but it is OK to come back, as this is
not so easy).
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it
is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that
appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level.
Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe
then it cannot confirm comp.
I guess you mean "cannot prove, or confirm in some definitive
way, comp".
No, I meant something stronger than that. I meant that what we
observe cannot count in favor of comp.
According to Deustch, nothing can count in favor of any theory. We
could only refute a theory, but positive confirmation does not lake
sense, according to him. I am not sanguine about this, and I can
make sense that a non-refutation can add credence to a theory, but
not that much.
What most adds credence is a surprising prediction that is
empirically confirmed.
That is not my task. I translate a problem that anyone assuming comp
has to solve.
In a sense, I refute physicalism, in the comp theory.
I search the truth, not to impress colleague.
In passing I show a rationalist conception of reality which is
Plotinian and Non Aristotelician.
All what I described could have been found before QM, and the quantum
aspect of nature could have been seen as a surprising prediction.
Well, actually, the comparison is not yet finished. Z1* is somehow a
generator of surprising predictions, as it might depart from the
quantum prediction.
Don't ask to much, the machine/number theological science is in its
infacy, to say the least.
Bruno
Brent
--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
