On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:02:51AM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: > > Your question may be coincidental, but it's pretty hard not to think there > is some connection with road crash taking place in what was the > Bruno-myself dialogue. You are also one people I relate to (no expectation > of reciprocation..that's not how it works). > > So, please if possible give your answer to: > > Falsification Thread: > > 1. I provided in fresh thread a clear definition of what I spoke of, > involving distinct properties at every point. > > 2. Is there a single response from Bruno, in which he actually compiles one > of his claims into such form he shows the same properties as in my > definition? Or where he explains why my definition is wrong? > > How can it be reasonable that someone does not do this? Instead simply > repeats the same points? How can it be reasonable of others to simply turn > a blind eye to this, and then some of them begin demonizing me? > > Please give your honest response to that, and whatever that is, be > reasonable and allow your position to be checked against the empirical > facts on this list in that thread. > > That's all I ask > > Similar issues the other threads but let's just go there to begin with.
Al, I have to admit I haven't been following the falsifiability thread too closely. Too much heat and not enough light for my liking. I know PGC will jump in and give me a stern lecture about about this, so PGC - I've heard you before. The thing is if I didn't skip over some conversations, I wouldn't have any time to explore something in depth, such as when Brent brings up his latest observation on quaternionic QM, or explaining the Born rule from counting arguments. If you remember, though, admitting this drove Elliot Temple into a rage, which culminated in getting me booted off FoR. All because I have more interest in some things rather than others :). In terms of where I stand on falsifiability of COMP, I do see how empirical predictions are possible from the AUDA, but that its a long and hard road quite out of reach of mere mathematical mortals like myself. I don't see why COMP necessarily implies the AUDA, although I had a glimmer of understanding at one point. But if the AUDA makes some solid predictions, and is in fact falsified, then it will become urgent to investigate whether the AUDA is in fact implied by COMP, as claimed by Bruno. Until then, I'm quite happy leaving it as an interesting possibility. So how does that fit in with your rather hard-nosed definition of falsifiability involving novel predictions that other theories don't make? I can see that COMP may one day have that property, if the consequences of the AUDA are fully worked out, but it doesn't now. But equally, I would say that a lot of science is also in the same boat. I see you as chucking the baby out with the bathwater, all for the sake of having a test of pseduo science that never gives a false-negative. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
