On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 7:22 PM, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 18, 2014 2:57:02 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hibbs, >>> I do not often share your opinion, but in this instance I do. It seems >>> to me that Bruno's principal argument for comp is that it predicts MWI. Yet >>> MWI itself is not falsifiable or testable. >>> >>> And I think MWI fails the measure problem despite the Gleason Theorem. >>> I think it is a mistake for Bruno to connect comp to MWI. Comp like string >>> theory is so rich in results that I suggest that it could as well predict a >>> single world. >>> >>> However, I do appreciate Bruno's intellect and humility, a rare >>> combination. >>> >> >> You do? >> >> Then why participate in this tedious, repetitive carousel of personal >> attacks (pointing to flaws without precision, just hand waving that there >> is one and/or attacking Bruno on personal level) of everybody who hasn't >> red the original thesis, the literature they are based on, and the papers >> that build, clarify, or expand on the consequences; while pretending to >> presuppose their content and invalidating them disingenuously? >> >> Everybody here should know by now that these "attacks" don't lead >> anywhere because off topic by nature and that comp makes your head spin in >> disbelief at first recognizing possibilities and implications. That's not >> an argument and neither are personal judgements and attacks of this sort. >> The real time wasters. PGC >> > > > > Quite a spew for someone that didn't look closely to in the first place > make a say. There's no profile of malice....I've only ever had one major > criticism of Bruno's theorizing, and I've tried hard to say it well enough > for him that he can move past this. > > It is totally independent of theory - his or anyone's. It's about > falsification that's all. He understands this wrongly...he conceives of it > thing with many variant .....,,.but this the bedrock of science, it's an > hard to vary thing. > > I understand you....you status-sniff so twill not have read any of my > descriptions. Had you of, you'd not entertain poor motivation this keenly, > because endless tries to say it better, a single - just one - major > criticism, is not the profile for that. > > Why not you have a go at my post previous to this, in which despite his > allegation of vaguery, I go a few steps further than anyone else I'm aware > of around here, to make more explicit the end to end structure of > falsifiability as it is, in Science. I say. > > How about you give me that say, and suffer reading the points, and should > you find disagreement, let me know. If possible also be less of a > turd-sniffer PGC. There's a of formula. >
Thank you for proving my point by making matters clear. 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 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
