On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:44, Russell Standish wrote:
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.
COMP does not necessarily imply AUDA, per se. Comp is enough or not
enough according to your degree of acceptance of the classical theory
of knowledge (that knowledge obeys []A -> A). But that theory can also
be seen as a definition, so COMP would imply AUDA, for anyone
believing in elementary arithmetic and accepting the classical theory
of knowledge or Theaetetus definition.
AUDA makes solid predictions, as it provides the whole propositional
logic of the observable, and up to now it does fit with quantum logic
(the probability of this is null a priori).
So how does that fit in with your rather hard-nosed definition of
falsifiability involving novel predictions that other theories don't
make?
And thanks to the non trivial Löbianity, we get a richer quantum logic
(more theorems), (like we get a richer epistemic intuitionist logic,
S4 + Grz), and so get novel predictions, although some tedious work
should be done to extract them, notably to optimize the modal theorem
provers.
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.
OK But that is "just" math. Of course an infinite work is awaiting the
computationalist.
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.
Hibbsa neglects my answer to him. Comp, or classical comp (comp +
classical theory of knowledge) satisfies his falsification criteria.
Bruno
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.
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/d/optout.
