Forgive my scepticism, but it would seem that there is no "foundation
theory". Either one must axiomatise away all semantic meaning for the
theory, or end up with one based on circular definitions of
terms. Popperian falsification is a good way of explaining why certain
scientific explanations are preferred over others, however it is not
the only one. Others would include Occam's razor, and aesthetics
(Einstein's sense of beauty). These three principle do not necessarily
point in the same direction. For example, empirical evidence
contradicting general relativity tends to be either ignored, or
analysed to an inch of its life to explain away the discrepancy in
terms of systematic or experiemntal error. The reason is because
physicists have faith that GR must be correct because of its inherent
beauty (of course if experimental evidence mounted up against GR to a
great level, then GR would either have to be abandoned or modified
(Popper's procedure) so by no means does beauty supervene on popperian
falsification, but nor is it the other way around. Similar with
Occam's razor)
I just don't see how this can be a building block of the TOE. It may
be a meta theory decsribing the theory, just as it discusses other
theories, but it is not a component.
Cheers
>
> Theory of knowledge has to be foundation of any other theories.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 6:36 AM
> > To: dude.domain.name.hidden
> > Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Subject: Re: Fabric of Reality
> >
> > Sorry - I was sitting at a different computer terminal than the one
> > next to my bookshelf.
> >
> > I was recommending the book for several reasons: arguments against
> > solipsism, physical evidence argument for the multiverse, the bit on
> > time travel, and the free will issue, and the first quantum concept
> > (now that I've looked at the book again to refresh my memory of what
> > this is. I agree that the book discusses
> > Tipler's crackpot Omega point theory, but I didn't get the impression
> > that Deutsch took it seriously.
> >
> > In any case, the most important message is that to construct a TOE, we
> > need to jump out of the physics perspective. However, I don't believe
> > that the four strands he picks (QM, Church's thesis, Evolution and
> > Popperian falsification) are the correct components. I suspect we have
> > a better integration in this mailing list. Definitely QM is in,
> > likewise information and computation theory (not just the
> > Church-Turing thesis), I suspect that evolution is a second order
> > phenomena (in the sense that hydrodynamics is a second order theory of
> > molecular dynamics). I don't really see where Popperian epistemology
> > fits in, except as a theory of evolution about knowledge - almost a
> > third order theory??.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > >
> > > I also had mixed feelings about this book. Read my review at
> > > http://www.chrismaloney.com/hobbies/books/for.html if you're
> > > interested.
> > >
> > >
> > > Higgo James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and Deutsch also talks baloney about omega point, but his
> > explanation
> > > > of 'time, the first quantum concept' is crystal. I've ordered modal
> > logic,
> > > > but I'm not looking forward to receiving it.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 1:41 PM
> > > > > To: Russell Standish
> > > > > Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > > > Subject: Re: Summary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Fair enough. Modal logic is where I lost you in your thesis -
> > > > > >hopefully I will time to read your suggested introductory book on
> > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice.
> > > > >
> > > > > >I would add Deutsch's Foundations of Reality. It has some
> > particularly
> > > > > >pertinent comments on Solipsism and on the Free Will vs Determinism
> > > > > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean his "Fabric of Reality". I like it very much. I agree
> > > > > with him when he explains that the two slit experiment with
> > > > > individual photon is an almost direct evidence for multiple worlds.
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate also the interpretation of Popper.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I deeply disagree with what he says about Church's thesis.
> > > > > More on this later, without doubt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruno.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chris Maloney
> > > http://www.chrismaloney.com
> > >
> > > "Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
> > > -- Homer Simpson
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> > University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> > Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> > Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Oct 07 1999 - 17:31:03 PDT