Hi Dan, It is OK to be critical. I always welcome this. But you are a bit short of argument. You seem convince by John Clark’s posts. At least John Clark told us where in the reasoning he thinks there is a mistake, but has not yet been able to explain it, or convince anybody.
So, if you understand his critics of the step 3 in the 8-steps version of the Universal Dovetailer argument, you are welcome to explain it to us. If you want, I re-explain the argument, but most people in this list have no problem with it, so you might insist, or just read it here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html About Aristotle primary substance, I am not sure I understand your remark. I discuss this on many groups on antic philosophy, and, you are the first to make this very astonishing remark. You might need to revise Aristotle's “Metaphysics” which is all about this (beware the different translations though). Concerning Craig Weinberg, we have agreed on everything. He just choose the option “weak-materialism” instead of mechanism, but seem to understand there incompatibility. Most of its philosophy is very close to what I extract from the theaetetus’ definition of knowledge, when applied to Gödel’s provability predicate (which I motivate either through thought experiments or by referring to Plato). We opus quasi everyday since the dialog on Facebook, as Craig seems to prefer. Please, explain John Clark’s argument, if you understand it. Brent has acknowledge having no problem up to step 6, and is unclear (or undecided perhaps) on step 7. You might ignored like many that all computations occurs in already a tiny segment of the arithmetical reality: the truth of the sigma_1 sentences (which is indeed equivalent to a universal dovetailing). That is required for step seven. This is well known by logicians since almost Gödel’s 1931 paper. That makes the believer in “Matter"forced to explain how their “Matter” can influence or interfere with the statistics on computations which are run in arithmetic (where “run” is taken in the sense of Church, Kleene, Turing, etc. Bruno > On 19 Jul 2019, at 05:18, Dan Sonik <danialso...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bravo PGC. Very Well Said. > > Delusions of reality as based in a purely mathematical scheme will never > amount to a "theory of everything..." > > Just another quaint, historically bounded, and deeply ontologically committed > idea with absolutely no practical relevance, much like Thales' commitment > that "all is water" or Anaximander's idea of the "apeiron" as a metaphysical > absolute. Sounds great on paper... try to do something with it... well, > that's a Turing TarPit right there. > > And just a further comment to Bruno's constant use of "Aristotelian > assumption" of "primary matter." Can I have primary source citation, please? > From what I recall of my Aristotle, a fair bit of it, I can't even once > remember him talking about "matter" in the ordinary, "post-Cartesian" sense > of the term. And you know why? Because he didn't have that distinction in his > lexicon!!! In his metaphysics, he talks of "particulars," not "matter" per > se, unless you think this is based on his idea of one of the four forms of > causation. And he argued that all four need to be present before a thing > comes to be (efficient, formal, teleological, final). Nowhere does he mention > the very modern (i.e. post-Descartes) idea of "matter" in this metaphysic. > > Please defend your claims philologically, and not by way of obscure > mathematical formula supposedly designed to lead us to some sort of ultimate > Platonic conclusion. And also not by way of convenient redefinitions of > common words (God, matter, machine) that leave most people in a dust of > confusion. (but maybe that's your intent?) > > I can already feel you writing... "but the hypothesis of mechanism dictates > that ... x must be y.... " ... "numbers must have dreams, and they must be > us... " the hypostases of the ultimate one talked about by plotinus (which > numbered 8) must be the only way if we assume mechanism... " > > ENOUGH! > > Your rhetoric and constant pompous references to your previous posts have > chased many great minds away from this list. (Craig Weinberg comes to mind.) > And I mostly come here to see John Clark constantly body slam you with > respect to the question of hardware implementation of computations... which > you never answer... like a true cultist... "Go back to step 3" -- fuck step > three. There are no matter duplicating machines. There is no "absolute first > person perspective"... referred to by a pronoun "I". And even if there were a > matter duplicating machine, it would have to be made of "matter" (pace John > Clark) and so couldn't simply just happen by virtue of the mathematical > formalism. (Remember Pythagoras? See where he ended up? Not because what he > said was true... because it was ANNOYINGLY FALSE) Therefore, your mind > experiment is done as far as practical consequences. So what? Who cares? What > are we even doing here? > > God bless John Clark for fighting this nonsense. > > Remember what this list was meant to do -- CULTIVATE THEORIES OF > EVERYTHING... NOT "Cultivate what conforms to Bruno's idea of a Theory of > Everything Is." > > And, please, no disrepect to any of the other participants on this thread. I > have followed you all for so long (10+) years that you are all family > (including Bruno, you silly bastard) > > I love the salutary conclusions that seem to emerge from your speculations, > Bruno, I really do... but so much effort has been dedicated to trying to make > you see that you have blindspots (Brent Meeker, John Clark, Craig Weinberg) > and you never modify your theory to cover them, you only insist that they > don't understand your genius plan. > > Let me ask you: if you are the only car traveling in a certain direction > (let's call it North) and you encounter multiple cars traveling at other > directions (namely, South), are the other guys driving in the wrong > direction? Or are you? > > And before anyone charges me of just dropping in uninvited, my claimed 10+ > years experience a lie, I have posted here before, in different guises. I'll > leave it up to the readers (if they're interested) in figuring out who I am. > > Doesn't matter now, though, my anonymity is blown. > > Please be kind (or not, this is the internet, after all...) > > Anyway, I found it irresistible to drop in and let you all know I love you > all and this forum, and Bruno too for being so god damned STUBBORN!! But it's > looking like you might need to re evaluate some stuff? > > Go ahead, cut me up in the comments... > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:06:10 AM UTC-5, PGC wrote: > On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 9:58:31 AM UTC+2, telmo wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be <>> wrote: >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com <>> wrote: >>> On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I don’t understand well what you say. >>> >>> Nobody, including yourself, understands what you say generally. >> >> >> Just tell me what you don’t understand specifically, and avoid ad hominem >> attack. It bores everybody, and distract from the thread. >> >> That is just bullying, Bruno. You accuse everyone who disagrees with you of >> ad hominem attacks. > > That is a lie and you know it. > > All of us can read. I saw the ad hominem remark applied to Bruce's posts by > Bruno multiple times. Read what Bruno said: "Just tell me what you don’t > understand specifically, and avoid ad hominem attack. It bores everybody, and > distract from the thread." He admits to not understanding and then assumes > authority and my consent to solicit his advice as some high priest of > theories of everything. You approach someone like that in the real world, > them always forcing their game on you, anybody with self-respect would tell > him to take a hike: I don't buy high priest discourse and refuse to > participate in folks' delusions of themselves. That's the ad hominem. > > And you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. I challenge you to find > one instance on this mailing list where Bruno accused anyone of ad hominem > without having been directed insulted: "pee pee theories", "you don't make > sense", "nobody knows what you're talking about", etc etc. I know you won't > produce this example because it doesn't exist, and I also know that you will > just avoid the topic and focus on the next insult / patronizing comment. > > Well, I have been participating in this mailing list on and off for more than > one decade, and more or less the only original ideas being discussed here > come from Bruno. I have witnessed multi-year threads discussing what he is > saying in great detail, so clearly some people must have some idea of what he > is saying. > > Interpersonal discourse is never this simple. On an open list you guys whine > about dissent while lamenting lack of loyalty to Bruno for having "more or > less the only original ideas here". That insults every participant including > those of us who've found their way here without agendas of grooming followers > into some professorial trip of personal mysticism presented as truth writ > large. > > As if the list existed only in virtue of Bruno's generosity towards lesser > people. I disagree because I've seen original thought from Telmo and most > participants, while seeing the list as a place for folks to practice and > enjoy banter with disagreement and dissent on theoretical/scientific topics. > > What this conspiracy type arguing performs discursively: Of course, targets > for confidence tricks and conspiratorial discourse have blind faith in > "debate/discourse" of their guru. Targets of such discourse are always framed > as experts on the correct side of a victimized history. That's the poisonous > reward: compensation at some later point, which is similar to the afterlife > promise from any exploitative discourse. Cult charlatan territory is what > this discourse toys with. In an age of disinformation you don't cede to > believing what you read. You criticize or leave. > > No need to worry because nobody's here for your loyalty. You can keep sipping > the kool aid of choice from the one guru of pure mathematical truth, > originality, and perfection. Nobody will take that away from you because > what's left to take? You've already given it all away. Including in recent > weeks admitting to replacing notions of evidence with emotional appeals to > the "correct, truthful attitude" along with disqualifying your and other > members' own originality here today. Bruno's originality? I interpret history > independently and see no evidence beyond speculative mathematical philosophy > and a combinator result. Duplicating, machines, quantum logic, immortality > all standard stuff with a few precisions on details. But original? Read more > and at least try to test your own assertions. There's not much here and > everybody here can do better. > > As if Bruno's approaches were the only thing under the sun. Get out there, > question everything, and get after things. Don't believe what you read but > read more outside zones of comfort. Do your thing. Read other things than > internet chat! If you want platonism as metaphysics, then go out and fight in > your local city councils and beyond. Realize your abilities to find and rally > more consensus for your cause, its implication to the world and other people; > and get out there. Instead his discourse in this setting implies the pursuit > of the right attitude by sitting on our butts, playing professor uninvited, > reading only his posts, the whole day splitting hairs in forums instead of > getting behind whatever you feel strongly about and reaching out to the world. > > Don't talk to me about debating issues: debating for what? Aristotle's > alleged "physicalism" on which so much of the "debates" with John are > linguistically based, enjoys no scientific consensus. Matter with Aristotle > is an unclear and inconsistent notion throughout Aristotle's writings. Folks > should justifiably be irritated when being sold such a bill of goods. All > except the credulous of course. Forcing incompleteness to mean "soul" in the > Christian sense, immunity from reductionism while uttering statements about > gods and their wills with assumed scientific authority, admitting that nobody > can make such statements while making them constantly, blasting the list with > truth assertions day in and day out. > > "I don't truth you so you don't truth me" somebody quoted in recent weeks. > Rightfully so because its insulting and rude: how stupid does he assume list > members to be? That's not original thought, it's synonymous with confidence > tricks for credibility in linguistic terms. Robbery with rhetorical tricks. > Scientific contributions on the other hand are what they are: contributions, > not statements of truth or some correct metaphysics or attitude. The humility > he admonishes everybody for not having: a double standard by his own > discursive measures. > > And I'll counter the "boring" argument as poor aesthetics from folks outside > their fields. Theoretical topics and their discussion can be abused. To deny > the possibility of such is too innocent for you guys. It belongs on the > agenda if this list is public and free. > > Maybe the limitation is on your side? > > You insist on rigor when you talk to Bruno (as you should), and then you side > with someone who produced exactly zero arguments, that writes long and > incoherent rants > > Who rants the most here? Who has the time for the highest number and longest > posts? Who writes as though they had to correct every thought and split every > hair with other members? > > that aim only at insulting Bruno for personal reasons. Unlike John Clark for > example. Say what you will, but I have never seen John Clark side with > bullshit just because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Give me a break > here. You are about as far from having a scientific attitude as I am from > becoming the next Miss Universe. > > You are right. Miss Universe is at least expected to have a brain of her own > and answer questions her own way! > > On an open list everybody's opinions matter, just like in democracy. Deal > with it or whine and practice conspiratorial discourses in private. No buy. > Not interested. Be as polite as you say you are instead of unleashing > motherly assaults, theological rants on ideal attitudes, when folks are > skeptical on matters religion and theology or employing bizarre rhetorical > tricks dismissing alleged statements as physicalist and stupid. We're people > beyond ideologies. Not reducible to written statements on chat forums as > virtually all this discourse assumes. Chat fundamentalism. Immunity from > reductionism? Lol > > The woo woo is decadence. Show me instead. I show what I parse to be > discursive intent because that's what interests me with science: what do you > mean? what kind of world does that paint? Is it beautiful? Is it joyous or > are you just getting off on posting in public? Independent, no side for me. > Salt for everyone. 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c3c5f2f-a009-4f96-bfaa-5c67e0cb1825%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c3c5f2f-a009-4f96-bfaa-5c67e0cb1825%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/45F0E4DC-C4C8-40A5-A20A-283DEE4492C1%40ulb.ac.be.
